second case for argument this morning you should not have states against lord guideline range to be four to ten months if then analyze certain statutory sentencing factors if found to be particularly relevant to the defendant and concluded after that analysis that the guidelines that was certainly  appropriate it then imposed a twenty month sentence that sentence consisting of ten months on each of the two counts to be run consecutively the district court erred in its conclusion that a twenty month sentence was within the four to ten month guideline range as set out in the revocation table and chapter seven the primary question before the court on appeal i believe is due the guideline range is located in the chapter seven revocation table represent total punishment it's my hope that the defendant's position that obviously they do would be rather non controversy all and but but in case the court is uncertain about that i think there are a number of reasons that strongly support the court concluding that those ranges do in fact represent the total punishment in looking up to the guidelines themselves those chapters that precede chapter seven and understanding the guiding principles that we use to establish the sentencing table in chapter five this whole notion that somehow the guideline range in chapter seven and would be drastically different is essentially foreign to the guidelines if the district court is guideline range are you referring to his guideline range was found to be four to ten months in the why do you refer to that as a guideline range there is no god range for revocation superbugs release there are application notes containing suggestions but there is no god on range and that's one reason why this court has held consistently over the years that the standard of review is not the normal guidelines standard your honor it was my understanding though even in a revocation context that the district court is still required to properly calculate the guideline range there is no guideline range for revocation supervise really now if your objection is that the district judge misunderstood the sentencing commission's recommendations i can get that but there is no guideline right sorry or your honor bright i guess perhaps i'm using out in precise terminology my position is that the district court misunderstood the sentencings commission's advice with respect to potential sentences which is to say the district court fought that the advice was a range of four to twenty months it's our belief that that is clearly not what the advice is that's embodied in chapter seven that the advice for total punishment was four to ten months that interpretation is consistent with sentencing commission's strong concern and more tight cases that those sentences not be driven primarily by a prosecutor's charging decision they want to do and you're you're really what not only is there no guidelines right the district judge said that she'd wasn't relying on what the commission was recommending that she was going to impose this sentence no matter what the recommendation ones conclusion of a sentencing hearing that day clears up a significant procedural error and so when the court reference that you know the holding of this core and in many cases there is no error if the district judge says it just doesn't matter what the commission recommended in this case here is the appropriate treatment of this particular person and i'm relying on the statutory criteria that we've said that there's no no error in that sequence because the guidelines what the sentencing commission recommended was not the dispositive factor now what your essentially urging us to do is ignore those cases or treat the district judge a liar or both and neither one is very attractive well it will come as a surprise i'm sure the court did i am not actually suggesting either of those and i think it's important when the court references the judge's remark at the closing of the sentence that it acknowledged that there was substantive remarks by the court with respect to why it imposed the sentence that it did and so this idea that the court somehow issued t it vice of the sentencing commission with respect to an appropriate range is just not borne out by the record itself in fact it is after the court discusses the statutory sentencing factors that it says a sentence within the guidelines and the court refers to them as the guidelines is appropriate so that it later in conclusion when it's brought to the court's attention that the sentence it's imposed is actually double the recommended range i believe when the court says quote if the sentence i imposed is not within the guidelines then it was my intention to oppose impose a sentence outside the guidelines in other words the sentence i imposed is the sentence i intended to impose as opposed to my being a guideline sentence i don't believe that that that's sufficient justification for the sentence that the court alternately went on to impose a sentence which is double and do you have some authority where this court has said that a declaration of that kind is legally inadequate your honor my understanding is that the court would have to provide a firm assuring the answer to that question is yes or no and if your answer is yes i'll be asking you to name the authority or remind your daughter that the case i'm thinking of that's in the brief i think is hines flag which is an opinion of this court where it talks about the need for a firm assurance that the sentence it imposed would it would still impose that same sentence in answer to the flesh is the court's direct question i would rely on the united states plays kinds flak for that position but also with with respect to this idea that the twenty month sentence is within the guidelines and i'm using the word guidelines because that's the way the court refers to them as well i would just note that that  totally at odds with the sentencing commission's concern about mold i count conviction cases the sentencing commission it's clear throughout the guidelines that they don't want sentences doubled or tripled depending upon how many counts the government lorena as a prop he went ahead pray not homeless people and drug addicts he went around in his car with a computer forging scripts going to multiple places and  maybe course haskell all you know seems only be two counts in illinois the other stuff was over in the state of missouri or the he's doing this he gets a light says he only got nine months the defense attorney and myself had agreed on a higher sentence the judge they accept that the judge was doing the right thing she felt that he was an addict and that she come we come down on the side ok so he gets our supervised release he goes to the r c he messes up with the typical violations not showing up when he's supposed to not paying his obligations possession of contraband she goes and gives him you know what could be used viewed as a first chance just a second chance because if you know arguably got a break at sentencing the he gets a second chance he just gets a modification he gets a g c he screws up another time pardon my language the same kind of stuff  he comes in front of this just shows you handle and and she gives him yet another chance ok but then also an hour after that does the same things and then but this time he goes ahead and repeats the thing that he was doing in the first place traveling around trying to forging scripts trying to get him past he and that that's when the judge came down hard on and she wanted to make sure that he was going to be doing some prison time where he was going to deal from potential victims and taking advantage of other folks so  what you're saying is he's had plenty of reasons to give him whatever you want to call it the maximum or whatever because of this continuing well if she's yes or no and that's it that simple when she said at the end this is what he deserved over here this is what he deserves and therefore that twitters are serious issues and that was it so all this and all this talk about what he kept doing with many prescriptions and doing all that abuse she thought the best place for him was to be penned up for twenty months