illegal. Section 5G1.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines generally directs the district court to impose a sentence for each count of conviction when initially sentencing a defendant. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2 (dictating the manner in which the district court should impose a sentence “on each such count” or “sentences on all counts”). But the imposition of a sentence upon revocation of supervised release is not governed by § 5G1.2. Instead, it is governed by Chapter Seven of the Guidelines, which contains no provision similar to § 5G1.2. See generally U.S.S.G. Ch. 7. Indeed, we’ve previously declined to extend some requirements under U.S.S.G, § 5G1.2 to restrict the district court’s discretion under Chapter 7 of the Guidelines. See United States v. Quinones, 136 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 1998) (<HOLDING>). When a term of supervised release is revoked,
holding that the revocation of one term of supervised release did not automatically terminate another holding that there is no significant conceptual difference between the revocation of probation or parole and the revocation of supervised release holding that reasonableness review applies to a sentence imposed upon a revocation of supervised release holding the district courts revocation of defendants term of supervised release did not end the courts jurisdiction over defendants release holding that  5g12 did not limit the district courts authority to impose consecutive terms of imprisonment upon revocation of supervised release since the policy statements in chapter 7 governed revocation sentences