Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

■ Marco Wigfall appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 12 months’ imprisonment. Wigfall argues that his sentence was plainly unreasonable because the district court mistakenly believed that Wigfall’s revocation sentence had to run consecutively to his state prison sentence. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court correctly understood that it had discretion to impose a concurrent or consecutive sentence. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.3(f) (2009) (policy statement expressing preference for consecutive sentences); United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2010) (discussing non-binding nature of policy statements concerning revocation). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.