United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                    ___________

                                    No. 98-2978
                                    ___________

United States of America,                *
                                         *
             Appellee,                   *
                                         * Appeal from the United States
      v.                                 * District Court for the
                                         * District of Nebraska.
Dean Thomas Tulley,                      *
                                         * [UNPUBLISHED]
             Appellant.                  *
                                    ___________

                            Submitted: January 29, 1999
                                Filed: April 5, 1999
                                    ___________

Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
                            ___________

PER CURIAM.

       While Dean Thomas Tulley was serving the supervised release portion of a
sentence imposed on him by the district court1 for a fraud offense, the court revoked
Tulley&s supervised release based on his admission to violating several supervised
release conditions--including leaving his known address without notifying his probation
officer, and remaining a fugitive for almost three years. The court sentenced Tulley
above the 8-14 month imprisonment range suggested under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines


      1
       The Honorable William G. Cambridge, Chief Judge, United States District
Court for the District of Nebraska.
Manual § 7B1.4(a), p.s. (1998), to 24 months imprisonment and no further period of
supervised release. Tulley now challenges his revocation sentence, and we affirm.

       After a thorough review of the record, we reject Tulley&s argument that the
district court failed to consider the applicable policy statements in Chapter 7 and the
sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We also conclude the district court did not
abuse its discretion in imposing the 24-month prison term. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3);
United States v. Grimes, 

, 492 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review); United
States v. Carr, 

, 983 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (Chapter 7 Guidelines are
advisory and nonbinding; district court may depart from revocation imprisonment range
when, in its considered discretion, such departure is warranted). We further reject
Tulley&s argument that the revocation imprisonment sentence was unreasonable because
it exceeded his original sentence. See United States v. Smeathers, 

, 19 (8th
Cir. 1991) (per curiam).

      Accordingly, we affirm.

      A true copy.

             Attest:

                     CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.




                                          -2-