Cole

MEMORANDUM **

Phillip Cole appeals the sentence imposed after revocation of probation. We agree with him that the district court failed to justify the sentence imposed, and accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Cole violated the terms and conditions of his probation. The district court was therefore entitled to “revoke the sentence of probation and resentence the defendant. ...” See 18 U.S.C. § 3565 (a)(2). In *696 such instances, the Sentencing Guidelines contain policy statements that recommend sentencing ranges based on the grade of violation. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4. The district court is not bound, however, by these recommended ranges. Rather, “[s]o long as a district court considers the policy statement, it is free to reject the suggested sentencing range and may revoke a defendant’s probation and impose a sentence that is below the statutory maximum.” See United States v. Olabanji, 268 F.3d 636, 637 (9th Cir.2001) (internal quotation omitted). In doing so, the district court is required to consider the relevant policy statements, provide sufficient reasons for rejecting the recommended range, and consider the sentencing guideline range for the…