am here because i represent christopher right in the district court chose not to apply the analysis crime doctrine to mr wright's conviction for criminal contempt the district court chose not to apply more than six years of president because of that reason we're asking the court remain on this case for every sentencing the reason that i appropriate for a reason i think is because mr wright was sentenced to thirty months when we suggest that the maximum that he could have been sentenced to was twenty four historically for one contempt resulted in is controversy over the years over whether the right to jury determination apply but what happened during that sort of insecurity was section for a one three was that a court recognized that contempt was a very broad and unique offense so the other offenses that the government has pointed to in terms of how the court should have made a determination of what the maximum if you read the language about class a and you're trying to get this down to class c it literally that would encompass this crime because there isn't then the question becomes is there any reason to read it differently the ninth circuit has come up with policy reasons to read it differently now we're not the ninth circuit to terminations or not if we go back to nine hundred fifty eight when the united states report decided reimburses united states realize that that's the first opportunity or the first time that the supreme court at least applied here now i guess the prime doctrine to section for a while and while that law may not be binding on this court now because of how that worked out in terms of the jury determination that's where the roots of this come from and because this is really about history in the sense that this was a very broad sort of law that the contempt power reasonableness of the sounds and the light of what actually happened and that is sort of the second part of this argument and the abuse of discretion analysis and the supreme court certainly in green said we've always review sentences for contempt for abuse of discretion which is why that or at least i chose that as the standard of review i understand that the government disputes that but even in the way that they just used it we see that they say this is a narrow law well there's longstanding precedent certainly in this circuit and probably others that suggest that an a itself an abuse of discretion and it is that you measure in this case through the guidelines that determines why it's an abuse discretion the district court simply didn't have the authority if it were following statutory principals if the measure is a class d or c product which is what we suggest that it is it's a class c or d felony it's most analogous to committing a crime on release and that would mean the maximum penalty that could have been imposed twenty four months and that's why we suggest that it's necessary to remain it's not just that that court chose to sentence him to something more even if it were to have followed the recommendation of the government which is that it could have imposed consecutive sentences because there are two cases that he violated the conditions of release on i suggest that that's still an abuse of discretion and this court has of i think adopted and applied the standard for what happens post booker  and the reason all this analysis and i think that if we were to look at this court's sort of most recent precedent on this which is united states versus anonymous we've seen that that reasonable this is also measure ninth circuit has adopted policy reasons but there are longstanding policy reasons and not only have they chosen those policies reasons the first time but they chose then the second time even close booker which is really what the government is arguing here is that booker changes the analysis that should be applied to this reasonable this and i'm at a loss to explain precisely why that is because it seems long perspective that they're absolutely required to follow a reasonable this analysis even in the context of supervised release and nothing further and rely on my has more specific questions our marketing guy for the united states in the government's view there are two things that are at work in this case and they are arise out of two terms that are similar somewhat confusing but different  one of them is the term class a felony that is the term that is used in the statute section three five nine a and pursuant to section three five three a a crime is a statute is a class  felony if the max the maximum on supervised release is five years the other term is somewhat confusing and somewhat similar is grade a and that is the term that is used in the guideline and when the guideline and the statute are applied together the question becomes whether the ultimate sentence was an abuse of discretion and if i may just skip to the end what i think was judge lynch's question and walk you through the computations anyway you would have sliced this if this had been a class b felony and a grade b guideline case the statutory maximum would have been three years in the guideline range would have been eighteen to twenty four months but the pre sentence report which originally miscalculated it recommended a term of thirty mons really as a variance based on the defendant's previous violations of supervised releases recalcitrance all a number of factors if as the government maintains this was a class a meaning it carried a five year statutory next summer and it was also a grade a guideline case then the statutory maximum again is five years the guideline range is forty six to fifty seven months and the sentence the defendant actually got is thirty months so that is a sentence that is within the statutory maximum both at the statutory class a and statutory class b the only other alternative is if this is been a statutory class see case in which the maximum would have been two years but as the prosecutor pointed out to the district judge the defendant was being violated for terms of supervised release imposed on two separate convictions so the sentences could have been stacked and in that event even if each one had carried a maximum of two years stacking them would have produced a sentence of four years again the defendant got a sentence of thirty months so in the government's view any way these calculations are performed the result was both a proper a sentence and a reasonable sentence the question of whether or not contempt carries a statutory maximum of life is is fully briefed and then in the government's brief i would simply add with respect to judge lynn just a question about the ninth circuit the government does not understand any of the defendant's authorities to dispute that a literal reading of the statute means that contempt carr statutory maximum of life what the defendant's authorities stand for the proposition is that under the circumstances of of the case it is not reasonable to impose the statutory maximum well that didn't happen here there was not a statutory maximum the second issue is really the guideline question and that is whether or not the defendant committed another federal crime when he committed aggravated assault with a dangerous weapon  i think that's fully covered in the government's brief and unless the court has questions about it i would rest on the brief and urge the court to affirm thank you