Ruffo

MEMORANDUM **

Dan Michael Ruffo appeals the three-year sentence imposed on revocation of supervised release. He contends that the district court failed to consider the applicable sentencing range set forth in the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4(a) (1998). While the policy statement is not binding, the court must consider it. 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a)(4)(B); United States v. George, 184 F.3d 1119, 1120-22 (9th Cir.1999). The applicable sentencing range specified by the policy statement was brought to the court’s attention in the Probation Office’s sentencing memorandum, which the court acknowledged having read. Moreover, both counsel made references to the policy statement at the revocation hearing. Under those circumstances, we conclude that the district court considered the policy statement’s sentencing range. Ruffo also contends that the court failed to state the reasons for imposing the sentence as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (c). While he offered no formal statement of reasons, throughout the hearing the judge expressed his concern that there was nothing to indicate that Russo had shown remorse or would change his behavior and…