sentencing him to a term of two years’ imprisonment for a “Grade C” violation of supervised release. Francis asserts that the District Court violated the individualized sentencing provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3553 and § 3583(e)(3), and failed to consider the (advisory) guidelines set forth in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines, when it stated that its sentence was based not only on the threat defendant posed to society, but also on its general philosophy of always imposing the maximum allowable sentence for supervised release violations. However, because the Court also made all of the relevant policy considerations and imposed a reasonable sentence within the statutory maximum, we affirm the District Court’s sentence. See United States v. Anderson, 15 F.3d 278, 283-84 (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). We have reviewed all of the defendant’s
holding statutory error harmless where district court imposed the highest available sentence under guidelines range and considered sentencing to the statutory maximum holding that for purposes of apprendi the statutory maximum is the maximum sentence that may be imposed based solely on the jurys findings holding statutory maximum for prior conviction is the potential maximum sentence defined by the applicable state criminal statute not the maximum sentence which could have been imposed against the particular defendant  according to the states sentencing guidelines holding that a sentence imposed for a violation of supervised release will be upheld where 1 the district court considered the applicable policy statements 2 the sentence is within the statutory maximum and 3 the sentence is reasonable holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release