On April 25, 2001, Defendant was sentenced to thirty-six months’ incarceration with the Bureau of Prisons to be followed by sixty months’ supervised release for her involvement in a drug conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. After completing her term of imprisonment, Defendant began her term of supervised release. On April 7, 2003, the Probation Office filed a Petition to revoke Defendant’s supervised release based on four alleged violations of the conditions of her supervised release: (1) commission of a state crime, (2) failure to notify her probation officer within seventy-two hours of her arrest, (3) failure to pass seven drug tests, and (4) continuation of a relationship with a known convicted felon. Defendant admitted to all four allegations.
Based on a combination of Defendant’s criminal history and the nature of the violations, the recommended sentence pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines was between five and eleven months of incarceration. The district court imposed a sentence of forty-eight months. Defendant appealed. After consideration of the issues presented, we remanded with directions for the district court to more adequately explain the reasons for imposing its sentence.
United States v. Tedford,
On July 16, 2004, the district court held an evidentiary hearing relating to Defendant’s resentencing. During that hearing, both Defendant and her fiancé testified. After receiving the testimony, the district court again imposed a forty-eight month sentence of incarceration. In so doing, the district court considered
the violation policy statements in Chapter 7 of the United States Sentencing Guideline Manual in effect and view[ed] those policies as advisory in nature for the purposes of the[ ] proceedings. [The district court] considered the nature and circumstances of the violation of conduct, which included that [Defendant was] convicted of a state crime while on supervised release; ... that [Defendant] failed to notify [her] probation officer within seventy-two hours of [her] arrest on the state charge; that [Defendant] failed seven drug tests; and that [she] continued a relationship with a convicted [felon]. All of these violations convinced the Court that [Defendant had] no regard or respect for the rules and conditions of supervised release, and that it would, therefore, be a waste of the limited resources of the probation office to have to continue supervision over a defendant who has repeatedly violated the terms of her supervised release. Additionally, at the time of [Defendant’s] original sentencing, this Court considered the fact that [she was] pregnant, and the impact that continued drug use would have upon [Defendant’s] unborn child. A sentence outside of the range called for by the application of the guidelines provides just punishment for [her] non-compliance [and] is an adequate deterrent to future criminal con *1161 duct, and perhaps will instill some respect for the law in [Defendant].
Rec., Vol. III, at 28-29.
Although the Supreme Court’s decision in
United States v. Booker
altered our standard of review for most sentencing cases, the standard of review for cases where the defendant challenges the revocation of her supervised release remains the same.
1
See United States v. Booker,
— U.S. -,
Defendant’s first contention is that her sentence was unreasonable because the district court did not “adequately considere ] the Chapter 7 policy statements.” Aplt’s Br. at 7-9. In imposing sentences after revocation of supervised release, district courts are obligated to consider Chapter 7’s policy statements.
United States v. Kelley,
Prior to imposing a sentence in the present case, the district court stated that it considered the Chapter 7 policy statements, viewed them as advisory, and then articulated the reasons warranting a sentence outside the recommended Guideline range. Rec., Vol. Ill, at 28-29. In so doing, the district court fulfilled its responsibility to adequately consider the Chapter 7 policy statements.
See United States v. Lee,
Defendant’s second contention attacks the district court’s reasoning in support of its sentence. Defendant claims the district court’s consideration of the Probation Office’s resources was an improper factor to rely on in imposing the sentence because it is not an enumerated factor in the Guidelines. Aplt’s Br. at 9-10. We review
de novo
the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines.
United States v. Burdex,
The Sentencing Guidelines set forth factors that must be considered,
see United States v. White,
AFFIRMED.
Notes
. We note that the Eighth Circuit has taken an identical position on this issue.
See United States v. Cotton,