Battermann

MEMORANDUM **

Paul Battermann appeals the district court’s imposition of sentence following a revocation of his supervised release. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural background of this case, we will not recount it here.

I

The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a twenty-four month sentence after finding that Battermann violated the conditions of his supervised release by using heroin, marijuana and alcohol. After finding a violation, a district court may impose a sentence up to the statutory maximum allowed under 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (e)(3). United States v. Musa, 220 F.3d 1096, 1100 (9th Cir.2000). The statutory maximum Battermann faced for his violations was three years. 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (e)(3).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to follow the Sentencing Commission’s advisory policy *380 statements applicable to revocations of supervised release. “The Chapter 7 policy statements are ‘mandatory’ only to the extent that the district court must consider them in calculating a sentence upon revocation of supervised release; the district court, however, is not bound by the ranges stated in Chapter…