analytical framework the judge used to determine this in this or to approve the agreement in this case the parties agreed upon a specific sentence one hundred fifty six months and  at several points within the police remit reference to get the guidelines from at least six different paragraphs referenced the guidelines and say that the defendant will be sentenced in accordance with the guidelines of the ultimate guidelines and know that one hundred fifty six months is near the midpoint of the advisory guideline range but the most important factor is what the judge months and this since the negotiated citizen hundred fifty six months was right smack in the middle of the sentencing guideline range later in the sentencing proceeding the judge actually went through the guidelines themselves told the defendant what his criminal history category was what the offense level was and how that worked into the sentencing matrix to arrive at the citizen guideline range even though the guidelines so suppose you're right on that the district court as you know also one on two alternatively rule that even if eligible for the suns for adoption she was not going to grant  reduction in this case in point y and it's the first question that our standard of review of that is abuse of discretion correct that's correct and why is why is that the judge did not sufficient under our case law which is as you know quite deferential on thirty five fifty three well first and foremost because the judge that decision was informed by an incorrect understanding of what the judge had done before while it was legal error to find mr smith not eligible it was also factual in nature  because the district judge believed that the sentencing guidelines didn't have any influence over the negotiated sentence and it's not clear from the record transcript but isn't the district judge in that circumstance sang just hypothesizing ok assuming you're eligible for the reduction my job now is to consider whether the sentence you have with the senate she wants whatever sense is reasonable all in light of all the thirty five fifty three factors and i was determined as the sentencing judge that the sentence you have which is thirteen years is the reasonable sentence after considering the factors and she had done a pfizer a few a few points on the record well there is a faulty premise informing the district court and the faulty premise is that the original sentence was not based on the guidelines and the guidelines are of thirty five fifty three factor so that factor when you get to this abuse of discretion standard is the discounted by the district judge because the district judge believes that it had no influence on the original sin if it did in fact have a an influence on the original sentence and the judges is operating under a current situation in the it is ok the the plea agreement or the guidelines are relevant now in considering whether the sen reasonable is appropriate and reasonable in light of all the thirty five fifty three factors which you correctly say the guidelines is one of those and the district judge here just concludes yes i've considered those factors and thirteen years  said about this that what i think could happen on remand is that if the district judge appreciates that the original sentence was based on the guidelines which incorporated thirty five fifty three eight factors and those guidelines are now lower it could it could have an influence on whether the judge thinks that this defendant should receive some reduction to case it's difficult one is one is a strictly legal error and one is when you're talking about procedural errors yes it's my view that wen maybe it may be a hypothetical if if a judge is actually saying assuming i'm wrong that i did rely on the guidelines that's not clear here all the judge says here is if he were  made in explaining the reasons for the senate which is another requirement by the district court of another procedural i would say it's a failure in this case to say that the defendant court's point of view the district court is not i think saying he is eligible at the first step the district court made a finding as a matter of law that he was not eligible at the second is that the district court is not i think saying if i am wrong on the law or i think that his record is is perhaps a if i'm wrong on the law and he is eligible the problem is the district court is won't want the law and the facts because the facts do not support the district court first step whining that the guidelines did not play a factor in his senate but that would mean i think they used always be entitled to the reduction in a case where the agreement was based on the guidelines say i realize it's a difficult standard but and perhaps i'm i'm i mean i don't think you make a good point in the bigger picture of hey we made the plea based on the guidelines the guidelines of change so the plea would have been different so you should bump that's a very logical position in my view of the problem is the law does not require the district judge to follow that pathologic but instead just kind of gives the discretion of destruction if i were a district judge i'd be completely with you but you know our standard of review is different what will to to come back to judge williams point about the language of the district court uses the district court at the at the second step the district court did not say i find as a as a matter of fact that the guidelines did inform the senate that this report is assuming that he is is eligible and but if the second step i think the factually i did not rely on the guy one in a thirty five thirty two proceeding the district court is not supposed to be figuring out what it did before and explaining like it's rationale for the sentence before the record speaks for itself that's why this court can look at the first step and see the sentencing transcript and see what the district court did before and that's why it's as a matter of law given addition or different guidelines or did not but at the second step the district court is having already determined the first step that it actually did not factually the second step it may be saying maybe legally if he's still eligible but first step can be reconciled with with a conditional or an alternative sentence that but i'm saying this is not a case that can be reconciled because at the second step the district court doesn't take that doesn't does not have a language such as even if i am factually incorrect even if my memory is incorrect the district report is just the same even if under the law he somehow eligible  but he's still being disadvantaged because the district court believes factually that the guidelines didn't play a role so as a different court doesn't we've we've been on ma'am scores well very deferential to to the district court so i take your point on that explanation of why don't we hear from the government will give you some time on  facts and this this agreement is right smack in the middle of it and the exceptions of responsibility on the other discussion how can we not say that it wasn't a part might not have been the biggest part but it was a part so you're the guidelines range or thout particular offense to which he was pleading guilty however that entire discussion indeed the first half of the transcript of the sentencing hearing was not related to the sentence you know itself when defendant when the appellant in this case came into the court that day it was not at all clear to any of the parties that he would be moving forward to sentencing that day instead he was still determining whether or not he would withdraw that as one factor of his is as he's considering whether to accept just to say look the sentencing guidelines are the fran are here for this entire deal and for my decision making on whether to approve it so it is true  that would have made him a mandatory life sentence let's just makes the sentencing guidelines that are issue here even more the exact framework for this entire please because we weren't going with the life argument the entire structure under which this deal was framed in his sentence was determined in the district court determined whether it was a reasonable thing for it to accept was the sentencing guidelines family what else did you rely on your honor i think there's a statutory enhanced it wasn't never subsequently amended so the basis for returning to and reducing the sentence under thirty five eighty two is no longer there there's no reason because the primary factor for which he mandatory life papers on his charge so if if the dis i'm trying to understand what the district court supposed to do in a case like this where it's a eleven c one so a number they come in with and they come in with a number and you all the whether this is a responsible thing for the court to accept what the court did in this case according to the language at page sixteen of the transcript is it loads to whether or not under the  plea she never again mentions that guideline range rather she mentions that the defendant always a mandatory life term by entering his plea which she has done so again is her  position is that eps requires us to look at the framework that the court is applying to accept this number as a plea and the framework that this court applied was looking at the life paper facing and then recognizing the thirteen years was a reasonable departure from that potential sentence and not looking at the fact that that sentence that thirteen years also the plea and so now the court as you said is transitioning to ok is this is this an acceptable sentence and she says the first thing we do is look at the sentencing guidelines this is after he's agreed to accept the first thing we do argument that the district court recognized in the alternative that she had discretion but was declining to exercise her discretion in this case given all factors yes you eligible the district court properly exercised its discretion in this case not only did the court recognize that it had discretion and recognize that the standard that it would need to apply to a sentencing reduction was a reconsideration of the statutory factors and thirty five fifty three a she also then went through an analysis of why she believes that the reason she gave a reason or if she did only about correcting the error or the crack in the chain based on the change that was worked in the guidelines you don't get to have a new armoring all new things and start a whole new conversation about what the right sentences so i don't know why the life factor the state her consideration was provided that she does consider the factors and it's based on her a opinion she does indicate that she's considering those factors in this case and notes that absent where does she indicate that she's giving he had engaged in post conviction of rehabilitation while at the jail but her determination that his prior history and the fact that he was willing to commit these crimes while on the release resulted in her finding him a danger that was on which  just well or that was all before that just means the district court stop sort of the record that was before her in the original sentencing and doesn't seem to have looked at anything that's happened in the intervening years but you can argue i the arguments that he made on pages four and five his brief and it is on page five of his brief that he raises his argument that she should consider his post conviction we go ahead and so therefore there is an implication that she well maybe there should be a different i think he's saying what we're just now maybe there should be a different rule least in this context where the new sentence is above the guidelines range so why not have that articulated by the question before that and i think it calls into question whether she explicitly address that in this case right but that wasn't this the the legal rules under which i something reduction situation when we've specifically said you're not required to address expressly each and every argument advanced by the defendant so i mean there could be a different rule here i a understand that they don't have to get every single thing but especially in these circumstances where everything is on the papers these are not wall complex arguments maybe perhaps an open longer complex more would be required but if it's a simple thing on to assure the public and the defendant that the court is taking the argument seriously  frivolous arguments the problem here in our case was told the district courts what they need to do and i'm sure they would do whatever we tell them to do i'm pretty confident of that but we told them so many different  things that i think this district judge presumably hunters stood our case law so i explained the reasons you don't have to you don't have to deal with every argument raised by the finder there is along those lines  any guidelines argument the guidelines argument is still in time and that that is a very important argument and that's the point that i was trying to make with regard to the abuse of discretion the district court doesn't say anywhere in its paragraph on denying the sentence reduction that the guidelines are not a fact or the guidelines on the old guidelines not to acknowledge that our whole basis for asking for this reduction is that something has changed and the guidelines are but one factor but they incorporate so much of thirty five fifty three day that here i think the district court had an obligation if it was going to say even if he's eligible why the new guidelines right so it's a narrow argument i understand that argument  and you have your progress so i think we understand that thank you very much for the arguments cases submitted