Watters, argues that, at least as used to § 3583(k) revocations and subsequent prosecutions, Haymond abrogates our double jeopardy precedent. Subsequent to Haymond, our court addressed a defendant's argument that Haymond designed a revocation sentence under a diverse provision, § 3583(g), a double jeopardy violation. Watters's double jeopardy argument is centered on § 3583(k).