please the court sandra ruling on behalf of mark's turning first to the procedural error the district court's duty as described by congress and eighteen u s c thirty five fifty three thirty five eight two is to revisit the sentence and impose a sentence that's sufficient but not greater than necessary in every case the sentence that sufficient but not greater than necessary is one number it's not a range or a ballpark number it's not a number that seems reasonable among other musical numbers if one month is sufficient two months is greater than necessary just records finding that mr smith did not warrant what termed early release because one hundred fifty six months was a reasonable sentence did not fulfill the court's duty under thirty five fifty three and thirty five eighty two and it was a procedural error it was the wrong framework  hundred fifty six month sentence needed to be more than reasonable and needed to be sufficient but not greater than necessary we also contend that one hundred fifty six months was in fact a greater than was necessary and therefore discretion to revisit under thirty five eighty two and apply the factors and thirty five fifty three what it can't do is simply revisit look at it and say well it was reasonable was a mid run defendant felt absolutely but in the heartland of cases he didn't get any points for his role in the offense he wasn't a leader he was a middle ground defendant and deserved sentence within the guidelines perhaps in the middle of the guidelines and not simply in steps above the range we absolutely recognize that the court has a lot of discretion that the square has a lot of discretion in these cases but in this particular case because the sentence was above the guideline bridge it's not entitle to upset presumption of using reasonable ness as it would have been if it had been following within the guiding range distinguish sentence so it doesn't need to be five months above the guideline range as it was previously but but what if what what is and reasonable in this case would substantively and reasonable is to impose a sen saying he should have gotten one hundred twenty six months we're saying he shouldn't have gotten that this sentence was unreasonable because it was above the guideline range and we would be in a much harder position if it had been somewhere within and reasonable as i said many times is and he's a mid level defendant in a case it's well within the heartland of cases there's absolutely nothing extraordinary kind of ordinary about this case i'm not support either reference all those factors explicitly or implicitly and decided not to reduce the sentence regarding substantive oh and i want to mention one other thing on the procedural claim here criminal history and his conduct but i think when you look at the order as a whole the trial judge demonstrated that he understood that he needed to weigh all these factors under thirty five fifty three and a in the terminating whether was arrested one hundred twenty five grams of cocaine was found in his car and i think it's understated that he was a middle rung participate in a very large drug conspiracy and also fifty one but when you five months that trade off you know in lieu of potentially losing your liberty for life was a very attractive deal for him and so it's not you no longer had this man tore him of life hanging over his head and he knew he was going to get one hundred fifty six months probably going to get one hundred fifty six month sentence instead which is what he received and also the fact that his office sizes and of course this is very deferential stener of you abuse of discretion use recognizes that the trial judge has the discretion to deny a reduction in the sentence if he makes a finding that he would have imposed year in terms of the district court's framework looking at whether it was a reasonable sentence that the number of words he used the belief of that remark makes no difference to the problem is that he was using the wrong framework  d there is a lot of talking in here today and in the district court's opinion about the fact that mr smith was facing life in prison he actually was not facing life in prison under the sentencing life in prison the government could have filed an effective one notice they had the grounds to do so and they didn't do that that is a discretionary man who they don't do that in every case so perhaps perhaps they would have but they didn't so to say that he was facing life in prison and you know got quite a bargain by getting hundred fifty six months i think is a bit misleading thank you thank you