appeal but fundamentally they're both about whether a church can be fed to have appropriately applied where she declines to decide even whether the law be applied to him this court's recent decision and she makes this case easier to decide this case is not identical to show but it ends up in the same place or court says that if the st step back to apply and it would deny the motion as a matter of discretion that won't sustain the judge's decision if the judge should not actually consider the defendant's arguments that would be relevant to the exercise of discretion so here the court basically said that if the st step back to apply it would deny was relief as a matter of discretion because coroner had violated the rules of supervision that didn't take into account any of his arguments which focused on the change to be statutory and the guidelines ranges both related to his original sentence and to the revocation proceedings so misfired could i ask you is yours fundamental point that the approach that the supreme court took in go all is what needs to happen here in the district court should have started with maybe the new anchoring point i congress has specifically granted judge's discretion with the use of the word mate in the law so if someone is eligible for relief in the then everything is really on the table and the judge is using a call analysis is considering shot this court recognize that in a case where the judge had instead of saying well i just won't decide whether section four hundred and four the st step back to was the judge said i don't think the for the section four  applies and then went on to deny as a matter of discretion but if she's not exercising that discretion in the way that we understand discretion in sentencing decisions and this is absolutely a sentencing decision then it's not really an exercise of discretion it's not on your argument that there's a two step process and that both steps have to be followed is there anything in the language of shaw that supports that showed have to be followed certainly shaw sets out the two step process and shaw remain added because the court really didn't give any reasoning even if you're set step back applied for rejecting it so they sent it back but there's is there any particular language you could point to where we said you have to follow both steps one and step two that you can't just skip to step two and assume step one applies no i don't think there is a language and  implies that and my argument is that that is an error on its own before even reaching the abuse of discretion is related to the fact that unlike some other circumstances where judges might skip one step and go to another hour or whatever here that st step has a real legal and factual substance about the very nature of the discretion that the judge was exercising because it's only by recognizing that the st step act indeed applies to corner the judgment recognize that the statutory ranges would have been different under the fair sentencing act of two thousand and ten both of the original sentencing and out in shall you believe that the court has to calculate the guidelines that the court can't just say he would be eligible under the st step ect is that correct i think that they would they need to determine whether the person of the eligible and they need to consider all the arguments relevant soldier ability now and some for a loop that you come at the step to i'm talking just about step one i understood you to say at step one that the court can't just say ok the st step back to applies to the court passed and then go on like in a regular sentencing and accurately calculate the guidelines is that correct i think that probably that makes sense but i wouldn't think that's precisely my argument and what you can arguments and that's what i understood you to be yes and that's why i ask you about gall because if i would understand it if you were arguing that in handling these four hundred and four dollars matters the judge isn't going to be guided in the exercise of that discretion until you see what that impact on the statutory criteria were for sentencing and also what the impact is the revised if you will guidelines reign then the judge can exercise that discretion and maybe say i still think what i did was find or maybe say whatever the judge yes that's correct and i'm sorry if i'm not being precise here i think mike the point that i was trying to make in being you know a little particular is that the st act will generally change the statutory sentencing range it does not always change the guideline sentencing range it very frequently does certainly the judge needs to consider the difference in the statutory sentencing range and the impact that that would have the st step of the fair something act of two thousand and ten where applicable including here where the guideline range has changed that's also necessary i just want to say in every case consider the guidelines change because in some cases there simply is no guidelines change but the judge considering that  one back and said i think i'd be happy with a judge putting and i their pocket and if the judge finds the person is eligible then she will need to find a statutory range any change the guidelines range and those are the things that are going to inform the exercise of discretion now and so you're saying the judge didn't even to this it step two then right at no step right she did the charge whether it's that or right ok that it was in of supervision was now considering all of the many things the st act allows the judge and requires the judge to consider in order to exercise discretion as part of the sentencing reform package and i will me push back a little bit there because i'm worried whether you call it a step one step one point five or a step to measure the st step backed changes the statutory ranges for mr corner at least probably it will for many people and it changed the guideline range so when the judge moves again i don't care what step you called step fifteen  when the judge moves to the final step of exercising her discretion she's she's skipped a part of her own thinking she hasn't measured what she wants to do against both the congressional specified ranges and the ranges recommended by the guidelines so we don't know really whether this is harmless or not i respectfully disagree your honor because st ball here this is a penalty authorized for class so she did consider you know again let's just refer to it as you know step two part two as the court did with the dialogue with bite that she then st decided maybe it applies maybe one thousand it doesn't matter i'm going to have the same sentence regardless but then when she got to the point where she could exercise her discretion she did analyze it she recognized that the classification of the felony offense to change but her sentence was below the maximum and she exercised reasonable discretion and i'm like in the i think that that is how both parties approached it below and that is you know you all know i mean the length of a possible length of supervised release is dictated by the statute it's conviction  it's all part of the sentence correct correct and that's why the district court noted here that it was sentencing well below what it was authorized to in th corners repeated violations and so i mean if you focus on the discretion that was exercised the government's view is it was very sound so the only potential air here at all would have been when the district court whether it applies whether the st up act applies or doesn't so the court yes definitely does that say yes mr corner is covered under the st step back the government acknowledges that but is that a basis for remember the government doesn't think so because we think that error was harmless and we've made that analogy you know an argument analogous to the s on the record whether i found that this enhanced been applied or not i would impose the same sentence well that's examined in high court that's that's precisely what the district court didn't do here the district court did not say i now have calculated what the guidelines range is as affected by the st step act but i have concluded that given mr corners record it doesn't make any difference to me that that never happened a know i'm looking at the just the court's order and that there's no basis in what the ranges would have been under the st step back that's the part that's missing and it's goal is right and certainly not to us  it isn't why isn't that a critical missing link because i first the court has to determine whether or not the defendant qualifies for any reduction of the st step back then you get to the calculation and that i interpret the district court as having  i was not at this particular revocation hearing a colleague covered it for me but at the revocation hearing this issue didn't arise is my memory and it wasn't until corner filed an appeal that then the issue arose court did ms from below that you believe the court actually looked at the difference in the statutory guidelines if he had been eligible under the st step  well she acknowledged in her order that now when you're under revocation you look at the classification of the felony offense and she did acknowledge that it changed again f yes there isn't you know like a chart outlining exactly the change in the if there's a guideline but she sent to a low it and recognize the change under the st step back so i think i'm a little confused by the court is there any where it looks like st of all in ruling on the motion there wasn't a hearing on the motion that self correct it was just the order is there anywhere in her ruling on the motion other than what you've pointed to the difference of classification where it's clear she considered the difference in the statutory range if he had qualifies under the  know and why wouldn't that matter i think well if the government's view that because the court was very on a global call that she would give the same sentence regardless shows that it's harmless error i mean you can definitely remain and obviously but i think the results are going to be the same and i know that that's often what happens on re man and that's ok obviously but  the court was just very firm in its view of mr corners agree just violations in the number of them this is the sentence that she wants to impose and will impose again regardless of whether he qualified under the st step act can a court make that determination without knowing what the statutory guidelines ranges i think she did by recognizing the difference between class b in class c is right in the statute which refers to those penalties she didn't specifically cite in her order what those were that she stated the statute that refer well all right thank you very much ms from below i think your time has now expired well thank you thank you anything further ms site yes thank you your honor st of all the district judge did not  knowledge even a difference in the revocation sentence range there's it's on the appendix page three and she quotes the defense brief as claiming  there is a difference and then says you know this just argument doesn't really matter because i gave you less than the true years but i think that's pretty far from acknowledging the significant difference in the statutory range both the original sentencing which was a nd more significant than in the statutory difference at the revocation proceeding and it also doesn't acknowledge the significant differences in the sick and the supervised release range  and you know this does matter quite a bit going forward both in terms of the term supervised release and given the way this order is worded we're looking at you know potentially a much longer period of incarceration that could be imposed if there are rules violations in the future you know but the judge could make a different decision and i completely acknowledge as miserable said the judge could make absolutely the same decision coming back but i think the court needs to confront the impact of the fair sentencing act of two thousand and ten because that's what the st act says that the court has to do is there anything despite that the court did not address in terms of arguments other than the difference in the statutory range  statutory range the guideline range the sort of general fairness but that would have been the same you said so the statutory range is really all what would have been different here and some other arguments were made in the motion a reduction under the st step act in your view other than the difference in the statutory range is there anything the court did not address that it should have yes there was also the difference in the guideline range a significant difference in the range at the original sentencing that contributed to both the original sentencing and the sort of your original prison sentence and the original term of supervised release and also the underlying facts of the  which were fairly mitigated because the focus was entirely on the revocation proceeding whereas the st act does allow the court to correct inequities that are present because someone was sentenced before the