SENATOR, I AGAIN DON'T HAVE THE ENTIRE RECORD. I REMEMBER IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE I CONSIDERED IT TO BE UNUSUAL, IN PART FOR THE REASONS THAT I DESCRIBED. I REMEMBER IN THAT CASE THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS ARGUING FOR PROBATION. IN PART BECAUSE HE ARGUED THAT HERE WE HAD A VERY YOUNG MAN, JUST GRADUATED FROM HIGH SCHOOL, HE PRESENTED ALL OF HIS DIPLOMAS AND CERTIFICATES AND THE THINGS THAT HE HAD DONE AND ARGUED, CONSISTENT WITH THE WHAT I WAS SEEING IN THE RECORD, THAT THIS PARTICULAR DEFENDANT HAD GOTTEN INTO THIS IN A WAY THAT WAS, I THOUGHT, INCONSISTENT WITH SOME OF THE OTHER CASES I HAD SEEN. PART OF WHAT A JUDGE IS DOING, AS REQUIRED BY CONGRESS, IS THINKING ABOUT THIS CASE, THINKING ABOUT UNWARRANTED SENTENCING DISPARITY THAT'S IN THE STATUTE. OTHER CASES, OTHER DETERMINATIONS THAT A JUDGE MAY HAVE MADE ABOUT THIS. I DON'T REMEMBER IN DETAIL THIS PARTICULAR CASE, BUT I DO RECALL IT BEING UNUSUAL. SO, MY ONLY POINT TO YOU IS THAT JUDGES ARE DOING THE WORK OF ASSESSING, AND EACH CASE, A NUMBER OF FACTORS THAT ARE SET FORWARD BY CONGRESS. ALL AGAINST THE BACKDROP OF HEINOUS CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. BUT THE GUIDELINES ARE NO LONGER MANDATORY, CONGRESS HAS NOT CORRECTED, AS YOU WOULD SAY, THE SUPREME COURT'S DETERMINATION ABOUT THAT. JUSTICE SCALIA'S DECISION THAT THE GUIDELINES ARE NOT MANDATORY, CONGRESS HAS NOT SAID THAT. AND CONGRESS HAS GIVEN JUDGES FACTORS TO CONSIDER. THIS, IN MY VIEW, WAS AN UNUSUAL CASE THAT HAD A NUMBER OF FACTORS THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS QUARANTINING OUT -- POINTING OUT, THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS POINTING OUT, THAT THE PROBATION OFFICE WAS POINTING OUT, AND I SENTENCED THIS 18 YEAR OLD TO THREE MONTHS IN FEDERAL PRISON UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WERE PRESENTED IN THIS CASE BECAUSE I WANTED HIM TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT HE HAD DONE WAS HARMFUL, THAT WHAT HE HAD DONE WAS UNLAWFUL, THAT WHAT HE HAD DONE VIOLATED THE LAW AND NEEDED TO BE PUNISHED. NOT ONLY BY PRISON, BUT ALSO BY ALL OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT THE LAW REQUIRES OF A JUDGE WHO IS SENTENCING IN THIS AREA. 