exclusively on statements by an identified confidential informant mr harding and his codefendant were apprehended in wisconsin in separate vehicles with a total of three dealing relatively modest amounts of you know gram levels of given that career offender status wouldn't his guidelines have been the same here regardless  attributed to him you know your honor that's what i said my no merit report and the court rejected it so the argument i'm making now in light of that is that perhaps the rule should be that when the district court still have a procedural relevance to the sentencing the court should then be obligated to to follow it what would have been the other one otherwise have been the mandatory procedure but and i understand you're suggesting we adapt this new position but you're not contesting given his career offender status that the guidelines would have been the same even if the court had just focused on the marijuana that was found in the car and the twenty seven five percent and the report points out that the government sponsorship for substantial assistance but also just for for other reasons is responsible for part of that in this how and that there should be some reference to what the guidelines would have been without the math calculation by the district court given the fifteen year mandatory minimum in this case and i don't think you're contesting that there is a fifteen year mandatory on another and given that the district court in sentencing mr helding really started with the fifteen year mandatory minimum how could that possibly be an abuse of discretion here well if the you know if the court had the support of our american men for mr holding is that we should have had an eviden to the government why i shouldn't impose fifteen years how is that an abuse of discretion under the facts of this and i don't think that is an abuse of discretion on or the question and what we're raising here is did the district court  evidence without without the without a with that with the judge saying i'm i'm not going to worry about the career friend or guidelines and then getting this evidence in apparently or well getting this report and apparently crediting these reports from c i is about very substantial quantities of methamphetamine i would think the defendant looks awfully different in the well of the court from somebody who  got the guidelines the guidelines are correct fender promises are correctly calculated then the court's procedural obligations the mandatory incorporate the guidelines into the sentencing have been satisfied so what i'm suggesting especially based on that there's there's also just a more much more basic due process right to be sentenced on the basis of accurate information yes or no and if you have thousands of methamphetamines are being taken into consideration under these circumstances that it's hard going to get a judge does not expressly disclaim it and it's a little hard to see how it can be harmless so that's that's my position i guess and i think that you know that the government argues evidentiary context and certainly in a in a search warrant context in the context where you're asking for an evidentiary hearing that makes a big difference if there's a sworn affidavit because then there's an issue of fact understood to findings as the political guidelines those are all performed by the court the correct calculation of the guidelines was the career from the guidelines of the court made that clear in at the sentencing in the transcript if you look at the statement of reasons the guidelines refer to and stigma reasons are all going through the career offender guidelines the court does refer to the fact because because it was going to exercise its discretion under under corner it does refer to the fact well the otherwise guidelines would have been deaths and the minimum mandatory is this there is no dispute that the defendant never disputed that the guy career offender guidelines applied there's no dispute that the current guidelines were greater than the other why we're offender guidelines really don't get you very far here since the district judge said he was going to be following he was going to exercise his discretion under corner but that does not mean an exercise of discretion on a corner there's nothing in corner that says if you exercise discretion in the corner  the guidelines no longer exist at all if it voids it out entirely the more to what it means it doesn't mean you go automatically back to the original guidelines the court can exercise its discretion to go a couple of months below three hundred guns to go anywhere in between so the rule the defendant's asking for that if the if the court decides to exercise its discretion in the guidelines under under court under corner that this court should tell it all not now you have to go back to the other guidelines takes away the discretion from the court to sentence him between those two guidelines history anderson if mr helling had not been a career offender let there be a problem with the guidelines calculation here no because the court made adequate findings  those informants whose information wasn't even relied on to to calculate the guidelines or the investigators forms whether i don't know if it was f b i six's or da six's or f b i thirty to support those reports attached to the p s r or was the court going just off of what the information was in the p s r it was we don't attach the copies of the reports that is the court ever asked them or never asked for them but there's but the p s r summarizes the making the finding she i think she was merely indicating that this is up to the court to decide how you want to weigh this but so is it sufficient for the court to decide that based solely on the p s r without something else it is and  there are a sight to a couple of cases in my brief there are cases where this court has said numerous times the court can rely on information that is that it that it adopts from the p r's in those other cases of course but it's not unusual for the p s r ating to say here's the information judge we and the p s r writer was saying we are calculating this as this is this is reliable information but i'm not making you know it's lying or incorrect absolutely no way to say one way or the other is there without being arbitrary been there good there was no information there's no  sufficient to contest that because it wasn't specific and number one it wasn't specific enough it was it was me or if you if you look at his objection was these paragraphs in the p s r are  e and again he he never disputed with which he got an answer for that he was using his his residence for me to maintain a residence for distribution which is what it was based on all those confidential informants statements that he was marijuana so those in that raise at least some questions about credibility of their information actually and actually i would say it supports their credibility because that it supports the credibility that they have been dealing in methamphetamine with with mr held you about it or he's weighing this as part of the pattern of conduct of the defendant now not necessarily the specific weight of methamphetamine or anything but it tells you as judge channels and for it to earlier it tells you about the pattern of conduct guideline that that was otherwise calculated and he started with the minimum mandatory and said to me much to the that was what started at the minimum mandatory rather than the career offender which would be twice as much and tell me why he deserves more than the minimum mandatory that's where the judge started both sides major major arguments and the court was a sentence that was neither within the group under age nor was it within the guy's a drug offense guideline range to sixteen turned sixteen months is almost high speed flight from the police and he possessed the firearms andrew but also drew in his girlfriend who had no prior convictions before this got her involved in this too he put the sentence three years above the minimum mandatory which had little to do with either of those guidelines calculations but it's not i'm arguing here it's not fair for him to not hold a hearing because the ultimate calculations were correctly done the career founder the court made sufficient findings as to the the drug amount and  the confidential informants and even if it were it would be harmless because what he because even if you used the defendant's drug quantities he could have got the sentence lower than the fifteen years that he started consideration