guidelines were fifteen to twenty one months the mother of this three children had written a letter describing what a wonderful father he was i was flabbergasted which is not a legal argument when he received one hundred twenty months there are three issues there all of equal and important merit i think one has the rare situation when a sentence is based on  departure was also unreasonable and the fact of the departure itself is unreasonable it would be foolish of me even though i don't agree with the factual finding the judge made concerning the advance that had occurred two years before mr anderson's crime in this case which was making a false statement when he tried to buy a gun that there was some sort of crime committed and assault i it's true that he was shot it's true they found his probably doesn't matter but even if that was all true to conclude that he had a propensity to commit criminal acts with firearms and the public safety demanded that he receive the statutory maximum for th offense of making a false statement i would urge you to conclude is beyond the pale of what can be accepted by this court as reasonable there was some testimony presented about these incidents what wasn't the was driving that had been shot at mr anderson also was shot and showed up at the hospital he was in the car i don't like i said this even if you accept the judge conclusion that that showed that two years before these events mr anderson had been in a group of people who were responsible for some crime that was never charged i don't know how you come from  about the judgments and no other fact of mr anderson's life other than the incident we're talking about and i suppose you know you can make make the observation you made your honor but that doesn't officers testify that he admitted it was obvious or specify there was a number of witnesses he was never arrested for if we're going to dismiss conclude that somebody deserves a greater penalty for making a fuss even when they try to buy a gun because that shows they  every one of those cases as a far more extensive description or justification for the sentence imposed they in the justifications break into two categories what the actual crime was it deserves more than the guidelines account for or things in the defendant's background convictions not convictions that were basically two hundred people that's generally what would happen i don't have case that was the rule our case cited in mr tilton's brief and that was a situation where the guideline range was thirty to thirty seven months on a firearm case in the district judge impose a sentence of one hundred twenty months the statutory maximum and this court later explicitly disavowed the holding in rule ard in light of goal because before a goal extraordinary circumstances were required to justify either a downward variance or an upward variance opposed all that is all changed in extraordinary circumstances are no longer required i want to discuss quote what the district court said at the sentencing hearing there's been a lot of discussion about the especially especially in the instance that has been proof and up here today referring to this ambush assault with a shoot out now at the outset of the sentencing hearing the district court noted that it carefully reviewed the pr report and the pre sentence report listed no less than three separate instances with mr anderson's involvement with firearms the first incident was in november of two thousand and eleven in the pre sentence report they document that mr anderson was a paranoid trying to enter a nightclub armed with a with a gun he was denied admittance a responding police officer saw mr anderson walking with an apparent bolger in his waistband and place  object in his car the officer confronted mr anderson turns out he had a bag with about fifteen grams of marijuana in his pocket and the car was searched and they found a revolver a three fifty seven revolver along with a set of digital scales and it turns out that revolver was stolen the mr anderson pled guilty to unlawful use of a weapon for carrying a concealed weapon he was placed on probation about a year later in the vendor of two thousand and twelve he was pulled over for a traffic violation officers fined two bags of marijuana a set of brass knuckles and the quantity of ammunition in the interior of the car and then they later find nine millimeter semiautomatic pistol in the trunk excuse me in the trunk which that pistol also turned out to be stolen so while he's on probation he's he's caught with another stolen gun and then a third incident in the in the pre sentence report documented that in two sept two thousand and seventeen mr anderson was a paranoid passed out drunk behind the wheel of a car with the motor running at a gas pump responding officers intoxicated all of those incidents were documented in the pre sentence report and then of course the district court heard extensive testimony about this what it referred to as an ambush assault resulting in a shootout and it's all in the sentencing transcript but a young lady who was only seventeen years of age at the time testified about what happened to mr anderson along with three other men all armed with weapons and wearing masks approached a parked car and one of the people that mr anderson was with fired a shot into the back seat and struck one of the occupants in the back seat and this young lady miss  williams she grabbed the gun that they had in their car and returned fire and struck mr anderson mr anderson arrived at that at that incident with a an a r fifteen style rifle that was loaded with thirty one rounds of ammunition and as the district court said it's the court's position that it's very fortunate that one or more people were not killed in this shootout and i wholly disagree with the defendant statement about his involvement and then the court went on to make the statement about mr anderson's propensity to use firearms especially in the instance of this ambush assault and is a judge woman in the k did before as well he's also been by his own admission there were a number of unsolved homicides that law enforcement officials questioned mr anderson about a man named jimmy walker who was murdered in cape gerardo i believe in two thousand seventeen and mr anderson admitted that he was with mr walker they accompanied him a strip club in illinois then they ended up hanging out in the parking lot in cape gerardo according to mr anderson he was standing right outside a car mr walker was sitting in the car an unknown subject quickly approaches the car and starts shooting at mr walker killing him and according to mr anderson by his own account he pulled out his gun and returned fire this unknown subject then fled through an alleyway and mr anderson he admitted that the first thing he does he goes and throws the gun into the mississippi river and then the other incident a man named quentin combs was murdered in two thousand and fifteen and mr anderson admitted to the police that he was responsible for killing mr combs but by his own self serving account he said it was a an act of lawful self defense according to mr anderson and he exchanged words with mr combs something about him appearing to be high on drugs and mr combs took exception to that and began shooting at mr anderson mr anderson draws his own weapon and shoots and kills mr combs and then he gives that firearm to a relative and it's ultimately disposed of so there is plenty in the record to show that that mr anderson did have a propensity to use firearms and in that finding as well supported by the record i i do and i think a major flaw with the appellants position is you simply have to look to the remedy he's seeking he's not just asking this court to reverse saying the appellant is asking for this court to instruct the district court that it cannot impose a sentence above thirty seven months imprisonment that's the relief he's seeking in his brief and there is simply no authority for that for this court to instruct the district court to impose a sentence eighty three months lower than what than what he felt appropriate in fact that is directly in conflict with ga and the subsequent line of cases as this court is well aware and all the supreme court explicitly rejected any sort of a mathematical approach to sentencing a percentage based approach to  was sometimes referred to as a proportionality test and all recognize that deviations from the guideline range will always appear more extreme at least in percentage terms when the range itself is low the supreme court recognized that a mathematical approach would simply be unworkable in fact the supreme court said trying to implement such an approach would be like quote attempting to measure an inventory of apple i have about thirty seconds i'd like ninety  you were to use means active use he was drunk in a car that's against the law if you have a gun in the car he was carrying a concealed weapon when he was seventeen years old that's against the law none of them involve active use of a gun so it's really a mischaracterization of his say that he's committed criminal acts he's a danger to the public because he's hurt people with guns just not troops even the incident that was proven that he's in this group of people somebody got shot it's not true and the government doesn't really claim it's true that he fired a shot or he personally hurt somebody with respect to the unsolved homicides there's one out there none of them one of them's on star that's mr walker the other one michael holmes admitted that he shot somebody in self defense the government's never challenge that it would be their burden to challenge that the the last thing i want to come out comment on is my suggested remedy which was a suggestion if you read the transcript judge limbaugh at the start of the sentencing proceeding asked the government why in the world they had dismissed one