united states versus this is a q a an appeal involving a denial of a sentence reduction under section thirty five easy to see i respectfully submit that there are three reasons why mr leonard is eligible for a sentence it is and i can i said yes true it is i would submit persuasive authority i would say that decision is very thorough well reasoned i do not believe that there is a reason to quite i suppose we can i read it differently with that summary order as to what the consult some are just saying the government the parties agree that just a sort of meyer's concurrences govern right the government as i understand it their argument here is a freeman does not apply at all i take it from that statement that if it goes to is it justice sotomayor is concurring approach opinion controlling as the guideline range to corresponds to the offense level determined pursuant to one one point one which is determined before consideration of any departure provision in the guidelines manual or any  and what i would say though is and i submit well the reason is is that if if if we say what you should look at and i think that's the essential thing that we're talking about here this is this is the core of between the two so it isn't that the range we look at is the range determined by the district court before he departed to a below guideline sentence and accepted the plea agreement so you know and reason is it's the acceptance and this is the court judge sotomayor as opinion it is the acceptance of the eleven agreement that binds the court to that rule of love and bring in to its terms now what makes this case i suppose the next step is and what the government is really is this other it must be also consistent with a policy statement and relying then on one the one point ten and this applicable guideline range in what is it with the p s r i'm going to go with the range in the plea agreement and it's ninety seven to one twenty one nine seventy one twenty one so that why would you waste the six pages of the transcript if you hadn't really thought through  would say if if we saw only look at the policeman it says it's not only saying that the agreed range was based on the calculations it is also saying that we the parties say that this is his actual level increase from role and whether it was one or two criminal history  certainly from my mr leonard standpoint if if what he obtains is it would be is the eligibility ninety seven months he certainly would be you know any any ability to go back to court and ask the court review his case to see whether one of the three four five three factors he would now united states  from the tone of the questions i think it's i think that the court obviously has a complete understanding of what the government's argument here is well that's correct and that's to correct the one b one point a guideline range yeah by one twenty one to one fifty one as the judge said and put in a statement or reasons because thirty five eighty two c two requires or makes a defendant eligible only when the sentence that he received was based on based on political guideline rang quintessential freeman case would be as your honor noted during questioning a situation where the plea agreement says that the defense the parties agree that the defendant shall be sentenced to  term or to a within a range defined by guideline section one b one point one and ok that would be the quintessential freeman case pursuant to a c one c the further you get away from that the less likely freeman is going to apply  form for the sentence well i think that that gets to the error and i will call it an error in the call this is a call says by having accepted the parties plea agreement the district court was bound by its terms and this is the important part including the guidelines range contained within the remit that statement runs afoul of the guidelines the guidelines require eleven c one  that the district court pursuant to six b one point two see properly calculate the guideline and then in this case is a little bit different from some of the others because the parties only agreed on a range they didn't agree on a specific sentence right and mccall and in freeman the parties agreed on the specific sentence in and so here the district judge still has the side where to go within the range right within the agreed upon fact i think he says it on the record is he's he's doing that within the confines of thirty five fifty three he was not at the time where he was deciding where to sentence the defendant between ninety seven to one twenty one using the recognize that sam doesn't what it boils down to is that thirty five eighty two c two is  that is a determination whether we're dealing with a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered and then if such a reduction is consistent with the political policy case that is not what happened not not in the footnote but i think the court to your honor already addressed that and furthermore that footnote was abrogated as this court recognized in the steel case by amendment seven fifty nine which clarified that a political guideline range means the one b one point one a sentencing range that which was enacted after freeman so very strong statements by the court about we have a different higher guideline calculation but what is critical here and then there's arguments by defense counsel made in the meantime no the calculation is right and then in the end the extent there may be some issue as to whether it should be a three point enhancement or if work point and to the extent there may be some issue as to whether the criminal history is one word too but i guess mostly because of the fact that the parties negotiated this and it continues on and then saying but after the presentation here of your lawyer in the government i will state that i am prepared to accept the rule eleven c one c commitment  which commitment was that the court imposes sentence within the range ninety seven one twenty one months not more not less so those for those reasons i make that finding and to read the next  the judge is saying then under this is not an easy record on the sinai i've met but what i would say is in a one one position and i think mccall has very strong language on this is that well i point to language in mccall and in mccall it's it's explicitly saying that once the judge accepts the eleven sea agreement he's bound to the calculation well and that's the argument here is it's not simply when the judge is i have to sentence to that sentence if i they had said that it said was within the range of zero to six months even though the judge sentenced calculated guidelines at one twenty one to one fifty one applicable guidelines  would have been one of or the party thank you very much