Watters, argues that, at the very least as applied to § 3583(k) revocations and subsequent prosecutions, Haymond abrogates our double jeopardy precedent. Subsequent to Haymond, our court docket addressed a defendant's argument that Haymond produced a revocation sentence underneath a unique provision, § 3583(g), a double jeopardy violation. Watters's double jeopardy argument is based on § 3583(k).