the defendant. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court should also consider the types of sentences available, relevant policy statements, and the need to avoid sentencing disparities. See id. 2. If, after considering the foregoing factors, the court finds by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant has committed the violations alleged, the court may continue him on probation, with or without extending the term or modifying or enlarging conditions, or revoke probation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3565. 3. The Sentencing Guidelines’ treatment of revocation of probation is advisory rather than mandatory, and these policy statements are only one of the factors the court shall consider in addressing modification of supervised release. See United States v. Schwegel, 126 F.3d 551 (3d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). 4. The Probation Office’s petition and the
holding that a sentencing court is required by 18 usc  3583g to revoke the defendants term of supervised release  unless defendant could come under the exception in 18 usc  3583d holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release holding that supervised release provisions remained advisory after amendments to 18 usc  3583 holding that term of supervised release was not automatically terminated when defendant was deported from united states and thus defendants subsequent commission of another offense illegal reentry after deportation prior to expiration of term of supervised release violated condition of supervised release that defendant commit no new offenses holding that under the restitution provision of the supervised release statute 18 usc  3583 restitution can be ordered only for losses caused by the specific conduct that is the basis for the offense of conviction