needham's guidelines range when sentencing her after the post davis baker chair of a nine hundred and twenty four dollars c conviction she was originally sentenced to three hundred and sixty months in prison for her participation in a hobbs act conspiracy and substantive robberies this was a downward departure from the guidelines range of six hundred and sixty two right based on her substantial cooperation with the government against the violent men who committed the robbery her role was to provide information about drug dealers is robberies and drug and sixty to life yet when she was recent events the district judge dismissed the dramatic dramatic reduction in the range as the framework for sentencing on the ground that he had not imposed a guideline sentence originally  granted a departure so despite three hundred month reduction in the guidelines range the court reduced her sentence by only six months this was procedural error because the court refused to consider the guidelines range as the framework and anchor for the i'm sorry i misspoke no i'm sorry i'm probably misspeaking myself you know he he only granted a six month reduction but three hundred month guidelines reduction and the supreme court has said multiple times granted what if you just focused on the updated guidelines range and reach the same result it seems like you're focused on the delta between the two and what if you just disregarded the change started with the updated range without  range and it acknowledged in response to the defense counsel's argument that this was a huge reduction and warranted a substantial sentence instead of rejecting that argument then we wouldn't be here we wouldn't have an argument if he had if he hadn't said that argument has only superficial appeal because it's quite has granted the government granted the government's motion for a downward departure from the earlier sentance and therefore i was not bound by any guidelines  mandatory minimum sentence then we we wouldn't we wouldn't have this argument but he did say that he expressed the reasoning that is just dead wrong under the supreme court rulings that that the frame that the guidelines are the framework and that when the guidelines change it framework changes so the guidelines should have an impact on this and it's and the court simply regard and it's actually it seems like it's more that the change in the guidelines from the original to the updated is what he should nice not up to the guidelines themselves exactly exactly because it's clear if you look at the impact of his reasoning it's clear that that she was really harmed here if you look at what her sentence would have been if her range had been three hundred and sixty a life originally with a five government five k motion based on her substantial cooperation she would have received a sentence significantly lower than the three hundred and sixty months that she received she received that sentence because that was a very large substantial as this court even noted in her appeal from that sentence a substantial departure from the range of six hundred and sixty dollars to life if the court had given the same proportional reduction that would have resulted in a sentence of under two hundred months and then the same for her subsequent substantial cooperation in the case against the correctional officers for a sexual abuse against inmates including herself she was a victim in that case  the court put in from the original sentence the court granted an eighteen month reduction in her overall sentence to two hundred and eighty months if that same reduction had been granted on the two hundred month sentence that would have been the proportional analogue  saying that the court would have to give a proportion sentence if the court the court could if properly considering the framework give a non proportional sentence that's not really argument but i'm i'm just pointing out that you know the what it sounds like argument is that it's so out of proportion that it must be procedural well my argument is that the court committed procedural error by by not using the guidelines for change is the framework  sentencing by not acknowledging that the change in the guidelines ranged mattered by reasoning that it didn't matter because he posted departure the st time that's the error but if you look at the impact that the real world consequences that you can see that this never would have happened if she had been sentenced to three hundred and sixty to life in the st place if the sentence had been correct in the st place the guidelines range is needed what it would have been she would have been out by now and really under any scenario even if the and ninety two months that she already had in at the time of re her davis re sentencing which is already up to seventeen years she did by the time of this way sentencing she was a twice cooperator who had put herself at great risk cooperate against a very violent gang of mistake that that that the new guidelines range had to be the framework for the new sentence and and stating instead that the guidelines really didn't matter because he had he had imposed a sentence outside the range in the st place the that the new guidelines range is is always the starting point and framework for any sentencing including re sentencing so his error was not  it went through the calculation but he rejected the argument that the dramatic change in the guidelines range the fact that there was now a three hundred month difference should make any difference in the outcome on the theory that because he departed the st time that didn't really people who were to be attacked every one of these encounters risked human life she was look out for some of them and the court decided that that you know that that that that that was and remained the appropriate punishment and it was within is it was within the maximums when you're on the court would wouldn't have been giving any any credit for her cooperation that if the if the court had been had and applied the right frame or had been looking at this the proper lands the court wouldn't have done that because there would have been no critics the court had actually said yes i agree the guidelines range is much lower and we have to start with that new guidelines range what they want what why should we say that they could have done exactly what you're talking about but was not required to do that is your argument that the court was required to to to  begin with the guidelines analysis and we sentencing yes that's my argument and that and if the court had it even if the question posed a similar sentence if the court had done it properly we would have the same argument we might have a different argument but think in this case because the court didn't have to approach that nonsense with the right framework from the get go right from the beginning rejecting the argument that the change in the guidelines mattered the court didn't properly analyze may please the court my name is sam rock child i'm an assistant united states attorney in the southern district of new york and i represent united states in this appeal this court should affirm the defendants and thence because it is reasonable and judge pauley committed no  imposing to pick up where the court just laptop in an attempt to invoke procedural unreasonableness the defendant contends that judge ali failed to properly that are the updated guidelines range judge poly expressly considered the guide the updated guidelines range and rejected the dark defendant's argument for adoption based on that updated guidelines range judge poly did everything that the court has required that this court has said repeatedly that the law does not require a specific and he made clear that the sentencing calculus in this case was driven by the severity and the history of the defendant's criminal conduct as tempered by her cooperation and her rehabilitation as well you should have considered the prior guidelines range in the change that seems to be the thrust of the defendant's argument i think that that is the thrust of the defendant's argument and i think the response is that he did consider that that that he he he understood the defendant's argument and and the the defendant can point to no case from this court holding that that presented a procedural procedurally and reasonable error just to the contrary that this court's precedent make clear that the requirement that the district court consider that three thousand five hundred and fifty three dollars a factors do not give the defendant a right to receive any particular weight or particular credit under a given fact this court has said time and again that is reasonable and the judge did not commit procedural error in imposing it this court will not nd guess the weight that a sentencing judge accorded a particular factors such as the guidelines rate i'd note that the supreme court's decision in one million a martinez cited by the defendant makes clear that the record in a case may show that the sentencing judge thought a particular sentence was appropriate irrespective of the guidelines range in the case and  think that's that's exactly this case here and i'd also note that the defendant's position in this case is inconsistent with the davis ruling itself where the supreme court expressly contemplated that the decision would not necessarily lead to overall sentence reductions because after they consider of a nine hundred and twenty four dollars c conviction the sentencing court might increase the sentence for the remaining counts make a  and twenty four dollars c will always lead to an updated guidelines range but on the defendant's theory imposition of a similar sentence in the face of an updated guidelines range would constitute procedural error that simply can't be squared with the supreme court's decision and  davis unless this court has further questions will rest on our submission and respectfully request that the sentence be affirmed thank you thank you yes your honor this case is not about requiring robotic incantations or what the judge did not say it is about what the court stated which is that the argument that the dramatic change in the guideline matters as only superficially appeal because this court granted the government's motion for downward departure the st time around and therefore was not bound by any of the guidelines or mandatory minimums he rejected it on the grounds that he had granted approach a departure the st time he rejected that argument on that ground and not on the other grounds he then weighed the factors it is true he weighed the factors and considered it the seriousness of the under of the of the offenses but he weighed that against  mistaken framework the in iran framework which is that the guidelines are always the starting point and benchmark and have to be a sentence has to precede the analysis has to proceed from there and that's argument we're not saying that