apply or at least consider the correctly calculated guidelines range under the most current guidelines manual and we believe that that's what's required by the plaintiff statute and by jones i get in the court in john's identified that sentencing court when imposing a new sentence under the st sex act has broad discretion and so i think that that gives a clue you know raise objections to the government's arguments mr fields is not asking for but there are sentencing he's not asking to be present all he's asking the court to do is to impose the new guidelines range and the difference between what mr denson was asking for and what was your field is asking for is that the issue is in mr fields case the fact that he is no longer a career funder there is no dispute over that that has been the th circuit court of appeals has has made that decision it said i don't think that i don't think that doesn't preclude really the other the other maybe avenue that you that we can consider is that part of the fair the part of the  previously been designated career members so you have these you have this idea that congress is trying to create is trying to level the playing field both with the various sentencing act and then again with the st step back but there but people like mr fields to our career lenders are meeting these barriers even though they're not technically career offenders anymore and so but counsel you're assuming that congress wanted to level seal as to sentencing on career offenders and there's not be were anywhere that i've seen are in your briefs i did too that says that was the purge the purpose of the fair sentencing act was to level the playing field or expressed an intent to level the playing field as to anything else whether it be career offender provisions or some other provision of the sentencing guideline that had been changed offenders and powder poking offenders crack so what i'm saying is that by not massive and not allowing the court to consider that he would not even be a career offender i'm sorry not allowing the move on one past that if there were other changes to the government and this was not a change because of the ruling of unconstitutionality you know the beccles decision rejected  the titian is entitled to the benefit of those later changes that had nothing to do with the cracked nothing to do with the the disparity between powder and crack and nothing to do with careers and i believe that it by defendant who was before the current the court for his cases before the court for a sentence reduction to the st step back is entitled to have a district court consider the all the guidelines that are now in place if it were in a place at the time of the st century right i believe yes i believe that the or should consider the guidelines range as it would be calculated today and this is exactly what mr feels is requesting so with that the government submits that has resolved the st issue with regards to the  issue whether or not there's any procedural or substantive and reasonable has the government argues that st and foremost the th circuit court of appeals has not district court's in its orders sent that after full review of the defendant's motion and the government's response there to and after reviewing the original p s r along with consideration of the defendant physical condition its course completions and his kind while in prison and then the court goes on but looking at that order that language it says that the district court did in fact consider not only mentioned in our district and i understand that other districts operate differently i don't think that there is a requirement to review using the thirty five to three a factor high ever that is our plan that is our join and i believe that would be a problem attic issue because it would be some difficult reviewing what exactly the district court was considering in fashion thirty eight factors and if they don't consider those thirty five to three a factors i could see where it would be difficult to look at what in fact the district courts considered however if the district court put on the record what was it's understand your honor and again if that's the case where the district court does not specify as in this case that three thousand five hundred and fifty three a factors were considered i think that the appellate court would then review what factors were considered by the district court here again looking at the language that's included in the order i think those are the language that's decision that's correct yes i can understand that there is a difference there but again it would have to be evident in the record what the district court in fact reviewed if the record doesn't indicate anything then yes it would be it could very well be problematic but in this case that's not the case where the district court was clear about what was reviewed he said and i understand your point here point i reasonable i was challenged as under it was challenge is unreasonable that ship challenge was rejected or women stayed on the case and if they didn't raise it that's another matter and now the senate is le consider them as they existed st sentence are as they never exist and if he does it and been badly exist then our president seems to foreclose that because there that's correct yes your honor that correct i would just point out that the st step ag is just those proceedings are lent to modification proceedings to determine what the appropriate sentence would be i believe that the sentence of two hundred and seventy months which amounts to a mere eight months above the low end of the gallon range was  consider them a new now that ties into something i want to address that judge barnes had asked me right at the end of my st argument i just want to clarify i understand that the we understand that the lower court ha fifty three dollars a factor and that should include the proper a calculation of how the guidelines stand today now i'm not saying that the court has to apply those guidelines or have to impose a sentence within that new range which includes the amendments and the changes to the law i'm just saying that it needs to be considered and in this case what happened was the district court thought that because it wasn't a plenary sentencing which as i no for that because it wasn't a primary resentencing the court wasn't entirely reasons that were recent that are the guidelines so what we're saying is that the court wasn't required to apply the guidelines but the court should have am not sure of my answer to that question i would say that i think there are other implications legal implications about increasing a defendant sentence but i will say that that if congress or the sentencing commission has we evaluated our our sentence structure and made changes then then the way they are today is probably a better reflection of what is what we've agreed or what they've decided as is fair and jots and so i i don't i'm not going to concede that the court could increase the president but could the court consider a higher guidelines range probably yes but that's a very least what we ended up with here today is that just an unreasonable sentence the court never made mention of what the current guidelines ranjit the court never made mention of what mr feels is new sentence would be compared to comparable defendants in a similar situation today and instead disregard is that argument or that consideration entirely and imposed like i said a sentence that the over twice what this defendant could have what mr fields would have received if you're before the court today