judgment to consider, as part of the sentence on the prior felony, a term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of probation. Id. at 515. We held that because such a term of imprisonment is indeed part of the punishment for the prior felony conviction, the district court properly counted such prison term in determining the length of the “sentence imposed” on the prior conviction. Id. In reaching that conclusion, we reasoned that “[ujnder both federal and state law a sentence imposed upon revocation of probation is treated as a sentence on the original underlying offense. Such a sentence is not considered a sanction for the new conduct which constituted a probation violation.” Id. at 516 (emphasis added); see also United States v. Hidalgo-Macias, 300 F.3d 281, 285 (2nd Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Ex parte Weaver, 880 S.W.2d 855, 857
holding that forfeiture is an element of the sentence imposed following conviction holding that standard for revocation of probation is preponderance of the evidence holding that a condition of probation requiring the defendant to spend up to one year in a halfway house at the discretion of the probation officer was lawfully imposed under as 1255100a5 because it was imposed as part of the original sentence holding that prison term following revocation of probation is a modification and part of the actual sentence imposed for the original offense holding that probation is not a sentence