the district court ignored or was dismissive of you of of the rule that the court should sanction primarily the defendant's breach of trust while taking into account to a limited degree the seriousness of the underlying violation the criminal history of the violated well really openly dismissive st and foremost as and he asked me a question st and foremost is a breach of trust do you interpret this to mean that i should take into account what the defendant actually did that for example missing a urine drug should not have the same effect as shooting and thirty eight factors to be considered to terminate a sentence off for supervised release violation the introduction to to chapter seven makes clear that the court may consider it as one is that in this court a set as long as this district considerate the seriousness of the crime it was this complete focus in announcing his decision the court said i just find regarding the possession of the fire in his brother's car i just statutory factors that courts are directed to look at in provoking supervised release and you're correct that it does not point to the seriousness of the offense but it does specifically include a deterring future crimes protecting the public and it was clear from the district court's commentary during the sentencing hearing the revocation that he was very concerned about protecting the public because of the gun in chicago in the circumstances why isn't that exactly what the court is supposed to do under three thousand five hundred and eighty three because he was i was just about to say and when i was  and i just find this is too dangerous of conduct for this court to do anything but impose a significant historical sentence and i find that the guidelines in this case do not accurately reflect the seriousness of the offense i'm going to enter the sentence above the guidelines for that reason and again judge the whole point this goes to my next point the whole theory that the judge had to step up why this seriousness of the offense was sort of weren't protecting the public court system wasn't going to do anything he was playing the role of the sentencing judge in in a in a gun violation case rather than a sentencing judge in a supervised release but looking at the sentencing as a whole in the judge's comments as a severity of an offense directly relevant to the breach of trust for example isn't it more of a breach of trust if you're out on release to b again looking at us as a whole and all of his comments and the need to protect the public that while he was concerned about the seriousness of the offense he was linking it to very appropriate factors that he supposed to look that your client cut the bracelet and isn't cutting cutting the bracelet a pretty serious breach of trust with the probation office you mean putting the putting the mechanism the mechanism the electronic monitoring in this car well no yes no it's going to know the bracelet wasn't on his ankle when they found it where it was supposed to but i i think that's wrong judge i think the issue was that he'd taken th electronic monitoring device and put it to a better ian put it in his trunk well then i think that we're supposed to be of course not judge well that isn't that the i thought that's at least the way i read the transcript a matter stand the your primary argument but i think there's a risk in saying that there is nothing in the transcript that addresses a breach of trust because that the cutting of the earth whatever happened with the bracelet  trust well judge if i may just quickly can conclude here because i want to reserve my time the district court ignored the recommendations of the product of the a u s a and the probation officer he ignored the positives in mr mr dawson's life that is how hard he was working it was taking care of his child to be's mother he was supporting a nice to see husband whose father had done it didn't ignore those factors heat he acknowledged them he just thought that a higher sentence was more appropriate for a variety of reasons that he articulated and certainly you can't be suggesting that district courts have to follow the recommendations of the probation officer for sentencing no but one would think judge when you have both a probation officer and an n a usa making the same recommendation that he would at least ask why why did you come to that conclusion let me make one additional point  running into my time one additional point and that is that when the district court indicated that he believed he was required to make the sentence consecutive to the anticipated state court sentence defense counsel informed him that while the u s s g provision said debt but the applicable statutes section three thousand five hundred and eighty three did not the court basically said it made no difference because its focus was on punishing mr dawson for the criminal kind of possessing fire i think all of those factors together make make policy statements governing revocations of supervised release in opposing above guidelines sentence as a court recognizes the policy statements are advisory guidance by the sentencing commission of th is the statutory mandate government revocation of supervised release thank you three percent eighty three requires the district court to fashion a sentence that takes into account the need to deter the defendant and others and to protect the public which inherently calls for consideration of the violation and the and its context i think in this rowhouse i think you would agree that the purpose of a supervised release violation appropriate sentence is for that breach of trust how is a court supposed to draw a line under differentiate between sentencing for breach of the court's trust versus sentencing monitoring device as a serious breach of the court's trust in fact so that the friend has shown a serious lack of respect for the conditions of supervised release so i think it is within the overarching context of the breach of the court's trust but it does it is the factors within three thousand five hundred and fifty three act but where's the line when does a court go too far on sentencing on a supervised release violation when it's clear he's punishing for the underlying offense how do we make that that's another factor that the court must consider and the district court did consider here is the advisory policy statement range of sentence and that that differs from a guideline sentence which may be higher than the advisory policies range revocation but it's just a different framework that does overlap with a substantive offense analysis if that district court had made the comments at sentencing about essentially the lack of the state's really pursuing these gun violations at the revocation hearing with that have gone too far your honor i do not believe that it would have gone too far depending on the context of the statements i do believe that that in supervised release has very little to do with trust on the part of the court it's an experiment it's a common part sometimes a mandatory part of sentences but it's not your honor i do not believe that would be contrary to law or statute the advisory policy got guidelines to focus on the idea of breach of trust but those are just advisory principles from the sense the commission that th the way i understand it well your honor wist was stating was that such a difficult would be upset that the defendant was breaking the rules was not following the court's trust and in that case that is within the framework of the advisory policy statements such as a positive drug test it was the dependence on lawful possession of a firearm that the district court characterized as a danger to the community the firearm itself was a nine millimeter glock it was semi automatic it had it was it had an extended cartridge it was more than fair for the district court to characterize that this weapon that the defendant possessed was a killing machine in light of all these facts the district court properly and recently concluded that it would then policy statement range sentence would not have been sufficient to deter the defendant or others were protect the public in addition the district court did not err in imposing consecutive sentence and this was consistent with the guidelines recommendation that revocation sentences should be imposed consecutive to underlying sentences and and as we've been stressing that doesn't make sense for the purpose the primary purpose of revocation something as they are district record reflects that district court strongly considered that the breach is the multiple brooches that a trust that the defendant committed including the unlawful possession of a firearm tampering with electronic monitoring equipment as well as the receipt of this nature of his supervised release violations those two events in occurred the same time but instead over were three months so a lot of factors from the your court properly consider all these things in fashion in a book focuses as it did a month before on that the judges in chicago aren't going to do anything and there's references to what he says on the th of january it's similar this was a pre determine it was the maximum possible sentence that could be imposed the guidelines are six to twelve months but it's consecutive the a statute allows up to twenty four months but it doesn't say anything about it having to be the judge and the supervised release only made half of that sentence consecutive you know what we have is a situation and the other thing about the firearm and i understand i have no i shot to say the fire finding should be overturned but that the evidence is the firearm was in the brother's car mr mr dawson was sitting in the front seat the officers testified he leaned down he leaned down when when the car was stopped by the officers and when i asked the officers do you know whether his brother told them to lean down that puts a push something in the back the answer was no so in a certain sense i think this is been blown out of proportion it's one thing if there was some history that mr dawson was involved in stuff like this then i would understand it but i think because this is a pre determined sentence that really ignores the guidance on punishing on  what he what mr dawson should be punished for and just goes off and says he's doing it for another reason for a reason he's not allowed to the seriousness of the violation i think this court needs to reverse this  send a message to lower courts all right thanks to both counsel and in our case is taken under advisement here and course will court will be in recess until tomorrow