F.2d at 496. Subsequently, the Chen court concluded that the Second Circuit “did not directly address today’s question, nor is there any indication that the question was put to that court and thus answered sub silentio.” 257 F.Supp.2d at 659 n. 8 (emphasis in original). However, in United States v. DiMattina, 885 F.Supp.2d 572, No. 11-705, 2012 WL 3260216 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2012), the district court held that DiSomma was controlling authority on this question. In obiter dicta, the DiMattina court noted that "Judge Scheindlin's decision in Chen is persuasive and would be followed in the instant case were it not for the implied holding of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in DiSomma.” Id. at 585-86, at *14. See also United States v. Capanelli, 263 F.Supp.2d 677 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (<HOLDING>). 5 . In Chen, the court asserted that "[t]he
holding a sentencing court is not required to grant probation holding in agreement with fourth fifth seventh eighth ninth and eleventh circuits that courts general sentencing discretion under 18 usc  3584 authorizes district courts revoking supervised release to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences holding that  3145c authorizes district courts to grant release pending sentencing recognizing district courts discretion to consider pending state charge in determining sentence holding the district courts revocation of defendants term of supervised release did not end the courts jurisdiction over defendants release