in the circuit ellis will bring you back again for the united states versus  you come up with more than one case usually i understand a bill that you might bring the wrong set of papers to the podium i try as a minimum to have the right materials in front of me before i begin your eyes thank you for the extra moment so  raises three sentencing issues in this case and the first is with respect to our contention that the judge must correctly calculate the guidelines which include a guideline calculation not for the sentence of the present but also for the period of supervised release and the government says that this position is foreclosed by the court's seven circuits decision in united states versus oliver but we believe that oliver is in tension obvious tension with gall and rita and those cases say that the district court should begin all sentencing proceedings by correctly calculating the guideline range mind you the guideline range they do not say just the term of imprisonment and that's what the government would say is all that is required under gall und reagan and this court's jurisprudence in oliver anderson any of the cases that the government cite cannot be squared with the fundamental obligations to begin all sentencing proceedings the correct guideline calculations so we know that this co is bound to follow binding follow binding supreme court precedent we said of the key yes case on that as well as israel ones a supreme court decision once the seventh circuit city i think that it's very clear on this and it may not be the way that things have been done  also doesn't require much effort to do it how hard is it for the sentencing judge to simply make the calculation it's there in the p s are it takes a few moments and then it's locked down and instead the government resists this simple effort and it can do so but it does so by creating tension between this court's case law and supreme court precedent and if the government were to lose on this and they think that they're really right would encourage them to go up to the supreme court we don't mind trying to argue the case up there we just said to the supreme court they're controlling authority and that's a difficulty under this court's townsend decision when the judge speaks the people leaves that departure to provisions exhaust the relevant reasons for a lower sentence departures are obsolete a characteristics the judge looked at the departure provisions and whether his analysis so tightly to those departure provisions that he squeezed out it seems any ability to then come in and adequately consider the same facts and factors but in respect to thirty five fifty three a one that is the area under townsend and we think that it occurred here in this case as for the third point the  judge used what i have referred to as a divide and conquer approach to take care of the various mitigating arguments we've passion this argument akin to would a probable cause analysis to reach the right result and probable cause analysis you have to consider the totality of the circumstances if you were to divide and conquer and take each bit out and say that well you looks like a normal person could have done this in a reasonable thing would have been for somebody else to do that you may never wind up with probable cause which would ultimately be a wrongness because the collection circumstances inform what the outcome should be to make a probable cause determination such is the case with all of the factors that go to thirty five fifty three  person's history and characteristics you cannot separate out in a slice off one fact one fact here another there and then get an adequate picture of a person's history in characteristics are that's what occurred here if you look at the transcript pages eight hundred nineteen all the way through twenty four i think that's i'm giving a faithful interpretation government takes a different temperature interpretation because it says at various points the judge said in sum but if you look at exactly what the judge was referring to for that comment particular he's talking about re citizens rejecting that argument saying that in some he doesn't think that there's a poor prospect of reset of his i'm or a great chance if this man is rehabilitated given his criminal past that's a fair conclusion for the government to reach but it is not a fair conclusion to say that some comment meant to encapsulate all of the thirty five fifty three eighty one factors like the government says so we have a difference of perspective on that but your honour's are very capable readers and you can go over transcript and and decide who's right on this week we hope that we prevail obviously but we leave it to you to review the transcript so considering each variable that's part of dependents history characteristics we think is the appropriate way to proceed and to use the divide and conquer approach the judge did essentially gave short shrift to the necessity of taking all of the person's human frailties into consideration to correctly calculate the sentence in the right in a just sentence which is the ultimate goal for the court plus the court's questions me and for othe please the court my name is maggie schneider and i represent the united states in this manner on the first issue of the district court and i procedurally err by not announcing the guidelines range the united states versus oliver as controlling it was sufficient that the district court was aware of and understood the guidelines strange and the record shows that it did just that and the second issue the record clearly shows that the district court considered the chapter five policy statements as helpful guideposts not as controlling and on the third issue what the defendant calls the divide and conquer issue the district court did not procedurally error when it considered the totality of the of the circumstances considered including each of the defendants individual arguments which it considered individually as it was required to do so and