order regarding preparation is did they just report the part if the district court imposed statens considering three five five three eight factors and how can this court review what happened this court recently and next held in that case if there was no guideline calculation here because this court did not include a departure the government specifically inquired of the district court following the below guideline sentence in this case whether it was the result of a departure and the just heard indicated that the record speaks for itself but there is no indication in this district court record as to whether the below guideline sentence was or was not the result of a departure there were five bases for departure raised three of them were raised pre the decision in booker the just a court then invited defense counsel to supplement the record and perhaps inference well that's the question i think your honor and that's a very good question i think that under the current jurisprudence in this court though the court cannot do that it's a two part process  cantrell many whether next the court's cases a lot of that is development the tappan sort of since the briefing and since the sentencing specifically says now we do two different things in deciding a post booker satins the first thing we do is look at the guidelines calculation and what is now clear is that includes a proper consideration of guideline departure authority so it is a two step process and in this ye research he appears to better ideas for a departure so why don't we continue the sentencing and why don't you look at that i don't see in the second sentencing procedure any discussion of the fa in light of the departure of language that the guidelines provide he certainly discussed facts the district court judge was very troubled by this case and he certainly discussed facts that were relevant i would submit to any of the five or many of the five departure bases but he did not discuss it in that way and he specifically said this is my guideline calculation and did not say and i'm going to talk about departures later or i'm not going to talk about the purchasers or i don't think i have departure authority or anything there's nothing after that sentence and then there is a very lengthy conversation about the the very difficult and troubling facts in this particular case and at the end the court then imposes the sentence and the government specifically says judge is that to depart and he said the record speaks for itself three anyway i think the quota question is a standard of review question and the question is what is this court's role visa v both departures under the guidelines post booker and evaluation balancing the three five five three eight factors and so i think that although there is in one case where it was dicta a suggestion that you know the district doesn't say anything maybe that's ok i think that probably can't continue to be this court's rule once we actually have a case that squarely presents the issue aside from your argument that the judge must tell us whether there are downward departing or not the fact is the judge doesn't need the authority any more pronounced departures under the guidelines it's just simply a reasonable sentence under three five five three the judge does have to consider all the factors but the judge doesn't have to stand on authority granted in the guidelines the judge can give a sentence that is quote unquote reasonable but less than the guy doesn't need the authority in the guideline any longer he doesn't need the for but he does have to do the two part analysis so i would suggest that when we have a case where we have facts and i think this is the case that generally this is the case raise lots of general issues and if the judge simply says it doesn't say i'm making the departure of the guidelines rather says i'm considering all of the factors in three five five three and i'm giving a sentence less than the guideline that's not the equivalent you know it's not the same now it's not your honor because you must insist that the judge says the magic words as an initial matter i'm departing under the guidelines now i also go on to say while giving a reasonable sense that is less than the guidelines under three five by three has to do both that is what is required by this court's current case authority i believe kim bruce says that we have to do a guidelines calculation cantrell many weather and mix state that includes evaluation of departure source so that's one piece so we can first do that one piece and if we have a departure issue and let's say the court says you know you've raised the basis for departure i don't think it qualifies as an extraordinary circumstance that there is language about when would we not need to go here you know when what distance be such and what they both all talk about is that the guidelines competent calculation would be so complex or that other three five five three eight factors so predominate that maybe we don't have to calculate a range and that's in hack and that's in a few of the other cases cited in cantrell and next but this is not that case this is not a complex case there are a balancing  factors and not based on any down departure and this is based on a reading of the record there were two sentencing hearings at the first sentencing hearing of the district court and the excerpt of record pages fifty four and fifty five addressed the two departure arguments and actually as the defense counsel that there was there was a combination of factors that made three departure arguments and the district court found that although it had discretion it was not going to exercise its discretion and the district court further supplemental briefing at the district court own initiative and suggestion of possible departure grounds so in the context of the record it's very fair to more than assume that the district court knew that if it wanted to down w and bases on which defense counsel should brief the issue in view of the upcoming second sentencing hearing this the defense counsel did that the government brief the matter further and at the argument at the sentencing the sentencing papers pre sentence report recognize the three by five three factors and said that there wasn't going to repeat its poem in every tentative rulings and comment and incorporated those comments as to  basis and reasons for the sentence that the court is going to oppose this is a page one hundred starting at line three so in looking at the way the district court went about its methodology i think a fair reading is that the district do a what i call a variance based on the book of variance of the three five three three eight factors and gave a lower sentence below the guideline range and again from the reading of what the the reasons were the district court was focusing on the three five five three factors particularly the danger to the community the need for the public safety the deterrence and the medical treatment of the defendant to counsel you and hosing counsel agree about the two steps but you're suggesting that the record will disclose that in fact the two step was performed here as it is do i understand your argument correctly or is there anything in cantrell or mix or any of these other cases that  would give us pause at all as is or is there a need to clarify what what the standard is not as the light of what to do in post book or on of was that the district court did not give proper way to all the factors the government's response was well it's this report decided that some factors were more compelling than others but the court did go through all the factors i believe those are the recent cases control mix just discuss what needs to be said on the record so the court of appeals has a basis to to to view whether the district court had in mind those factors and properly apply them but in this case the issue appears to be whether the  to the three five five three factors and actually focused on those three or four that i mentioned and decided that i would lower than guideline sentence was appropriate and i call that the fence counsel and i would raise this that where there is a sentence where the guidelines are correctly computed in this case the government's and that's there is no disagreement in fact there was even below the guidelines that the court sure the court is familiar with at page seven zero one specifically says after booker the district court still is required to articulate the reasons for the extent of the departure insufficiently specific language to allow  review now the government now says it wasn't a departure but that was not clear to them at the time of the sentencing excerpt of record one o five mr harthouse asks to clarify the court's consult of the guidelines the fact that the sentence was lower than the guideline range is that because the court made a downward departure on any of the grounds the court record is the record and the court has applied the law as i understand the law post booker and that is the