that on our interpretation of the proviso, the mandatory minimum revocation sentence should include a fine as well as a term of imprisonment. See post, at 58. The term of probation, however, was imposed in lieu of a sentence of imprisonment, not in lieu of a fine. Revocation of the sentence of probation, we think, implies replacing the sentence of probation with a sentence of imprisonment, but does not require changing an unrevoked sentence earlier imposed. 13 See United States v. Penn, 17 F. 3d 70 (CA4 1994) (expressly declaring that the minimum revocation sentence is one-third of the top of the Guidelines range); United States v. Alese, 6 F. 3d 85 (CA2 1993) (per curiam) (same); United States v. Gordon, 961 F. 2d 426 (CA3 1992) (same); United States v. Clay, 982 F. 2d 959 (CA6 1993) (<HOLDING>), cert. pending, No. 93-52; United States v.
holding a sentence within the advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable 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 where the guideline range is higher than the statutory maximum sentence the court should depart from the lowest range that could support the statutory maximum holding that the maximum revocation sentence is the top of the guidelines range holding that the defendants sentence was within the guidelines range and therefore presumptively reasonable