a defendant will complete his or her sentence. Because these factors are all beyond a sentencing court’s control, the sentencing court will never know and ean never determine with any degree of certainty the exact date a defendant will complete any given sentence. We know of no principle of law that requires a court to attempt such an exercise in futility; nor do we know of any principles that render a consecutive sentencing void or unjust based upon the resulting indeterminacy. As long as the defendant has adequate notice that a consecutive sentence may be imposed, a failure to determine the exact calendar date upon which a consecutive sentence is to begin does not deny the defendant due process of law. Cf. Burns v. United States, 501 U.S. 129, 111 S.Ct. 2182, 115 L.Ed.2d 123 (1991) (<HOLDING>); Lankford v. Idaho, 500 U.S. 110, 111 S.Ct.
holding that district court must provide reasonable notice of intent to upwardly depart from guideline range holding that despite the advisory nature of the sentencing guidelines they remain the starting point and the initial benchmark of a district courts sentencing analysis the district court should begin all sentencing proceedings by correctly calculating the applicable guidelines range and keep that range in mind throughout the sentencing process and that failing to calculate or improperly calculating the guidelines range  or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentenceemdashincluding an explanation for any deviation from the guidelines range constitutes significant procedural error  holding that a district court must notify the parties that it intends to upwardly depart from the sentencing range established by the sentencing guidelines holding that explanation that sentencing judge was persuaded by the arguments at the hearing and in the sentencing memos that he should not depart downward from the guidelines range was sufficient holding that a defendants assertion that the district court did not believe it had the statutory authority to depart from sentencing guideline range  presents a cognizable claim on appeal