OPINION

Christopher Lee Hickman appeals the district court’s sentence of twenty-four months in prison, to run consecutively with his state sentence, following revocation of his supervised release. Hickman argues the district court erred by imposing a twenty-four month consecutive sentence when the sentencing guidelines range was four to ten months in prison.

The policy statement in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.3(f) (2000) provides that a term of imprisonment for revocation of supervised release “shall be ordered to be served consecutively to any sentence of imprisonment the defendant is serving....” The policy statements in Chapter 7 are non-binding advisory guides, and the district court’s sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995). We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in either imposing the twenty-four month sentence for the violation of supervised release or in ordering it to be served consecutively to his state sentences.

We therefore affirm Hickman’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.