good morning may have police the court the defendant appellant gaddy elder marrow appeals his sentence of two hundred seventy six months only twenty three years in a federal prison on the grounds that it was both procedurally and substantively and reasonable and we've also raised in our brief for purposes of preservation of the issue a challenge to the length of the sentence under the cruel and unusual punishment provisions of the united states  guidelines at sentencing instead the court merely adopted the finding of the u s probation department that the a political guideline range was three hundred sixty months to life  objections and the six level of headsman it drops the range actually below what the district court judge imposed first sentence thinking that the court was departing or bearing down work from three sixty to  all of them together are significant i would argue that the calculation of the actual guidelines is important that happening to land on three sixty to life but at the wrong offense level or perhaps at the wrong criminal history level still a significant the guidelines are meant to be a framework the benchmark the important benchmark from which all of the determinations of departures and variances originate and so sentencing court that believes that somebody said three sixty two right there's a level forty two and seeks to vary downward maybe look at the sentencing guidelines table and see that a downward variance still results in three six  potential logic of it but when i look at the call seems to refer to the phrase kalki in the guidelines sentencing range which you can see the potential problem for you with putting it that way because the range doesn't change only the process of cutting it was erroneous here we also have some case law that has found a guidelines calculation finding out about offense level to be harmless because the error in determining whether they had been applied or not didn't affect the range so if it's harmless in that setting rule thirty two violation for a failure to make a finding on it is issue concerning offense level when the offense level no matter how  a argument is based on the principle that the totality of the circumstances is what the court looks in the context of assessing whether or not a sentence is reasonably imposed and our position is that that sentence guy ryan calculation is meant to be done correctly and i think that that also dovetails with the other portion that the court has raised which is the six level enhanced meant for ransom demand and when you combine those together the significance of the failure of the case that i cited to is a seventh circuit case is a coin it out it relies on first circuit precedent and that first circuit precedent is is an assessment of a provision under two a four point one b happens to be  that of be one which applies here but the same principles apply in that case the first circuit case this court held that there had to be some third party involvement further i would point out that the reynolds court in determining that there needs to be a ransom made on a third party was looking at the text of the statute i mean of the guidelines itself as a primary means of determining what the requirement was the seventh circuit went through a fairly detailed discussion of that guidelines provision indicating that there is a ransom demand or a demand on the government the demand on the government quite clearly is a demand on a third party the seventh circuit reason that that means that a ransom demand by the text of the guidelines itself which applies here require that there be third party involvement in the seventh circuit said that it's not all that convincing point i think that  i think the rather the seventh circuit i think explained it by saying that we have the first circuit saying that there needs to be third party involvement under subsection six the text suggests that the ransom demand be made and it's in the same  ision as the ransom demand being made on the government the seventh circuit further noted that the provision provides pertains to the hostage taking act which also requires that the hostage be taken for purposes of influencing a third party and determine that when you look at the full scope of the purpose and the application of that guideline that it applies to ransom demands being made only to a third party in the seventh circuit noted that it had looked and found not a single case where that enhance honor i think that the seven circuit address that and they pointed out that this demand on a third party add sort of a new victim to the i see it my time's expired my it my finish my response the seventh circuit indicated that the ransom demand on a third party creates a new victim in essence a person who's worried about the person who's been taken as a hostage or abducted could create a rescue perhaps in circumstances like where you have it an abduction  case law in support of that proposition in fact i would quote this court to its recent decision from twenty fifteen and vasquez murari where this court i think tacitly rejected the notion that a less bad version of the same guidelines range chance and i think that's exactly right but importantly there's no claim here that the district court incorrectly calculated the guideline sentencing range and the expense that it landed on something other than what that appropriate range was i think if judge in thinking about the sentence to be aware of exactly who this defendant is what they did and how of the area actual conduct looks relative to other people's and then you might think the sentencing commission says ok now there's a range of people that are you know offense level thirty to thirty six here is the range of the sentence you could give you could be at the high end of that range you could be at the low end of that range just seems like there's a certain logic to it in making the judgment of where to and for lack of a better way to put it being somewhere in the form of a less bad version of the same g s r is reversible error i think also here even i think it's important to note that even if there had been some sort of error in terms of  error here that would require a reversal if i understand for the questions on that topic i would like to briefly address the ransom demand argument that if it makes as romero concedes that argument the guideline itself that romero relies on the seven circuits decision and reynolds to suggest that his read of the guideline is the obvious one and the only obvious one but i would note that i think that  got it wrong and your honest touched on a few of the rationale that the court there offered in support of its reading of the statue i have to focus on one a second circuit pointed to what it called the ordinary understanding of the meaning of the word to reject the dictionary definition which doesn't include a third party requirement but it's frankly hard to know what to make of this argument because when some are asked and vos third party it doesn't necessarily have to if the  but i know here that several junctures in his own brief well mail refers to what happened here as ransom which i think just goes to show that the common understanding of the word ransom doesn't necessarily involve a third so i'm just wondering is there any legal authority we could look to it is a statute in which any jurisdiction has ever sought to criminalize conduct called ransom in the conduct argument fails for the simple reason that we are on playing our analysis here