kill following his rd sentencing at the district court in this appeal he raises similar issues to those that he raised in the previous appeal mr ballard was sentenced initially in this case to the career center the court in that at that point in time did a ten percent upward variance from the guideline range and impose at that point in time of two hundred and thirty two months and person ratio mr boucher to pills and the government conceded in that instance that he was not a hundred and sixty percent very uncertain upward various settings from the guideline range and mr bauer argued in the previous appeal that there was nothing in his case that justified the substantial to mr ballard behavior good behavior while he was incarcerated and also due to the fact if he had provided information to the state government officials regarding it a potential attempt on the guard's life span had had done something he'd never done in his life before that was a government official the case was remanded by this court with directions to the district court and the guideline from thirteen to twenty three so a ten level increase and guided by the court based that increase on the same facts that it had before at the previous things that the initial set again the only difference was additional medication information in this particular instance the additional mitigation information included the fact that mr ballard had for the st time in i completed a drug treatment program and it was a one hundred and behavior at that point throughout his just a in state custody including as i said previously having reported that there was going to be there was a planned attack on a guard so he did very well while he was incarcerated something that is not clear when you look at his prior history it's something that that's new and also mitigating in september to see that about eighty percent of his adult life behind bars right he has spent about eighty percent of his adult life behind bars the teen reported in the change of plea hearing i'm sorry the sentencing hearing that sick place last june with judge gilbert he said he would be in for six months get out go back in for six months get out maybe go back in for eighteen months and finish life like that and he was fired and so at the time that he was sentenced in this case i think it's important to note that his county back to previous  conviction that mr ballard had before being sentenced here there were seven driving license suspended conviction one drunkenness conviction one obstruction of justice conviction for providing a false name and date of birth and one conviction for using a police animal so that's a far cry from the prior history and it seems to be the prior history before that that judge gilbert seem about eight times but all of that information was what the judge was aware of at the time of the original thing when he did the ten percent for variance from the guidelines there's again the only new information has all been mitigation which w show a change in mr ballard which the court gave short shrift to and sentencing at the sentencing hearing and mr ballard did complete his fate sentence so his federal sentence  guideline calculation and so there's a reason for that the sentencing commission has said obviously that the farther we get away from some of those the older people get the less likely they are to a sort of a and clearly in the last ten shrift to that and again the court was aware of all of the criminal history all of the violations of parole those were all outlined in the pre sentence report the court had before it when it sentenced him the st time and did a ten percent effort very the court then of course considered that same information into the one hundred and sixty percent variance this court remanded that and again the same information is available in the court does one hundred and twenty five percent percent variance and and what the only changes have been to the positive mr ballard is now doing federal programming because he is in a federal facility at the time of the sentencing in the federal and the rd thing in the federal case he had only had a very short period of time in the beer prisons he'd already completed one program in that three my thirty four months period something about something in that ballpark and then he was taken back to local custody by the marshals to pin to to wait on the thing hearing and he waited some time because of the pandemic he opted to do thing in your honor i think that i have take taken up quite a bit of my time i would like to reserve the remainder if you don't have any further questions for me right now that's fine counsel thank you thank you sentence in further detail trying to emphasize each of the points that this court raised in his previous opinion he addressed those factors he determined what he believed was a reasonable sentence in the should be a for is you can see mr ballard has lived a life time of career my colleague wants you to focus on the last five or ten years but you can't do that he has created a whole lifetime the crime beginning at age the manner in which the status handled his previous incarcerations or his previous cases they have all been state tases i believe they've all been in the state of illinois and  but what it shows is an inability to comply with society's basic laws regarding driving it shows that there is a need to protect the public from future crimes from mr ballard because he refuses to comply what your honor i think the government did make a recommendation in this case and what i guess the point is everybody in the courtroom agrees and even i think this court agrees that mr ballard deserves an upward vari it's just that where along that scale between forty one months and one hundred and twenty months that sentence should be and along that continuum there is not one reasonable sentence there is not one month sixty months seventy two months four months ninety two months not one point where there is just one reasonable sentence there there's a continuum of reasonable senses out there the government riginal he said one hundred and eight months was a reasonable sentence and recommended that the person sitting in the government this court said that was too long so now the government is trying to figure out well what is not only an upward variance but one that this court may accept just because midday races facts that well as older convictions are longer away as well as the fact that mr ballard is getting older but i point out none of that has prevented him from continuing to commit crimes this day also raises the fact that is she keeps going back to the original sentence when that event was deemed an armed career criminal and as guideline range was one hundred and eighty to two hundred and ten months and said judge gilbert well he only went up to two hundred and thirty two months in that case so it was less the variance was less percentage wise than currently let's sort of mixing apples and oranges when you're trying to determine a reasonable sentence based on the advisory guidelines if you're starting off at fifteen to seventeen years and you go up to one thousand years then is it still a dramatic dramatic increase and it shows that even with that long of a sentence judge the over believe in the provisions was appropriate here we're only talking about you know i know it's not my wife but we're talking about less than a less than eight years which is a far cry from a judge delivered rigidly pronounced in this case again the question in this case is was judge gilbert sentence reasonable and i think importantly did judge gilbert follow the dictates of this court's prior opinion and judge gilbert clearly did the sensing transcript shows that he read basically the entire opinion into the potential sentences in this case that we still believe that that was imposed last summer of ninety two months one hundred and twenty five percent increase about the high end of the guideline is still unreasonable that the court still relies upon the same facts that it relied upon when giving the ten percent increase about the guidelines in the original case and i know that mr norwood's argument seems to be well that was a higher starting point to begin with but that's not how that you know the fact that there was an error on the part of the court and calculating that the guideline range originally the court still believe that there was a ten percent that ten percent was appropriate the court sentence in this case does not consider again the fact that there's a difference in the nature of mr bowers prior convictions in the last ten years it doesn't consider the mitigating circumstances the fact that he's completed drug treatment that he's in a stable relationship all of those things are ignored just that is was is a reasonably high and when those factors are considered in when you consider the even the fact that the parties themselves after negotiating from both sides the pros and cons came up with the sentencing