&ivn(<)WineVViev' be ^-zmled sendee reducho-n uvtdeK
■sfetfus points Amendment &aJ aiad -WnaA' unde« IS U.SZ. Z&SSfa'fte) 7
reaumnq-toe Court to ronftoter "the need -toavoid unwanted
sXcStupantoei «m™ defendant wrtto mW r^oreto wte^v®
teen tonvnd ot-SimiW conduct- «M<ch Atoo Court did hot.

<x) WteW bistort Court Committed «u- when the
" lg ,.sc tactova aa Wen ,h ton-e And cannot denS
rebet- on toe Arrund that- reWe- ap?rp?nW undev-toeSa^al

Whether Detendanti Sentence showtd teadjurtod tor status-points
when Oiotncl- Court Stated to Oetendunt W 4 she pied out-to 4
c^nte that th® otter counts o(Vle, W
t'THe couttT •. — we ^o AVtvpt^i gtU Hus»-Haose 3
dismtsseei . Tiney 'Ke- ^on&
nihen '.t- was. not as I was chaged with «U. counts <.2rt)

Whether a defendant's sentence should be adjusted for status points when the District Court failed to consider dismissed counts in calculating criminal history