supreme court when there are mandatory sentencing guidelines has redefined maximum sentence statutory maximum the maximum punishment i think is the court's well aware following booker when there are mandatory guidelines the statutory maximum is not how the united states code but instead is found in the high end of the sentencing guideline range that results from either the offense of conviction following trial for the offense of conviction following a guilty plea could i just ask you to marry question what is this really the custody standard today she served the six month and the nine month terms is that correct she is not fully served her second six month term your honor she's scheduled live you released either in late may early june even if she was already released if our argument prevails your honor she would no longer have a supervised release term so even if the court reached a decision the cumulative punishment that she received from her underlying sentencing which was ten months combined with her revocation punishment could not exceed her original sentencing guideline range which was six to twelve months because in order to revoke her that first time we maintained the judge found facts which increased her maximum punishment and that those facts found by the judge resulted in that the argument you're making here right you can create the right argument here is that the original guideline range high end which was twelve months that twelve months is the statutory maximum the maximum sentence under booker and you use that to determine the amount of supervised release revocation imprisonment that she can receive which under thirty five eighty three she says that when the maximum sentence is twelve months the maximum revocation imprisonment is twelve months so we have a different argument going to the know because that's what congress intended generally for the a pretty revolution and now there's been this up people in the law and when you have mandatory guidelines which when judge malloy revoked miss ra somebody being sentenced today this argument what it applied to helping out with tracing this he was convicted she was convicted under section six fifty six so correct fraud and that he has a thirty year maximum sentence and a three year maximum which would then make it a three year maximum for a  blakeley pre book book or understanding of statutory maximums that was found in united states code booker is saying statutory maximum with under mandatory sentencing guidelines is not found in the united states code but instead is the high end of the guideline range that results from the offense of conviction without the judge making any additional factual findings i don't see how booker can a man and a statute of conviction was a violation of supervised release based on that finding a violation then imposing additional punishment this is a different argument saying that the phrase statutory maximum maximum term of imprisonment has been redefined by it would be correct if booker dinner we defined what maximum morning out of it please the court my name is tim roscoe from the united states attorney's office i'm in the middle of montana branch office got it it's our position that there is no reason to read the statutes that are really an issue in this case thirty five fifty nine  thirty five eighty three any differently unless there's a constitutional problem created by what the judge does in a supervised release revocation and there is no problem constitutionally under the sixth member because the only fact that needs to be found the district judge impose a sentence of three years imprisonment for a class b felony is found at the time in this case when ms ray admits that she violated bank fraud in violation of six five six of title eighteen that's the only fact they need to be found in order for the three year term of imprisonment thirty five eighty three to apply and that fact was found which she admitted admittedly the district judge has to find facts to revoke or to serve as a source of her revocation at the time of the revocation hearing but those facts prison i could potentially give you i go right back to the fact of conviction a class b felony if you admit it time to change fully and then cross referenced statutes for which there is no constitutional implication six fifty six which provided for a thirty year maximum which translated into a three year maximum for revocation of supervised release exact time i might get my analysis correct  of prison under thirty five eighty three in the absence of the judge finding those additional facts there's no sixth amendment problem and no problem reading thirty five fifty nine thirty five eighty three a the summarized our position the only way that fact finding would be an issue here is if the district court wanted to sell the house say that the original statutory maximum at the original underlying sentencing was thirty years because they were mandatory guy's life and under this raised original guideline calculation based on her guilty plea the guideline range was six to twelve months so the high