034043P.pdf   09/07/2004  United States  v.  Cornell White Face
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  03-4043
                          and No:  04-1527
                          and No:  04-1239
                          and No:  04-1030
                          and No:  03-4059
   District of South Dakota   
   Criminal case - Sentencing Guidelines. Chapter 7 policy statements 
   remained nonbinding on the district courts after the passage of the 
   PROTECT Act, and a revocation sentence outside the Chapter 7 range is 
   not a departure because there is no binding guideline from which to 
   depart; given these principles, defendants were not entitled to prior notice 
   that the district court was contemplating a sentence outside the Chapter 7 
   range; cases would not be remanded for lack of written reasons for 
   sentencing outside the Chapter 7 range since the sentences were not 
   plainly unreasonable or an abuse of discretion; district courts are 
   encouraged to provide written statements of reasons in revocation 
   proceedings, as such statements are helpful to the parties, the reviewing 
   court and the Sentencing Commission, which has the statutory 
   responsibility to collect sentencing data and maintain a comprehensive 
   database on all federal sentences, including revocations; in imposing 
   sentence, the district court adequately considered the policy statements in 
   Chapter 7 along with the sentencing objectives of deterrence, just deserts, 
   incapacitation and rehabilitation as required by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(a). 
   [PUBLISHED] [Murphy, Author, with Wollman and Heaney, Circuit Judges]