Sentence imposed for probation violation is affirmed over claims that the sentence is: 1) procedurally unreasonable as the court failed (a) to consider the Sentencing Commission's policy statements regarding probation violations and other sentencing factors identified in 18 U.S.C. sections 3553(a), and (b) to state its reasons for imposing a non-Guidelines sentence; and 2) substantively unreasonable as it is disproportionate to the seriousness of his probation violation. Case is remanded in part for the court to comply with the ministerial requirement of memorializing its sentencing reasons in writing as required by 18 U.S.C. section 3553(c)(2).