the Guidelines only when the plea agreement “expressly uses a Guidelines sentencing range applicable to the charged offense to establish the term of imprisonment.” Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522, 131 S.Ct. 2685, 2695, 180 L.Ed.2d 519 (2011) (Sotomayor, J., concurring); United States v. Graham, 704 F.3d 1275, 1278 (10th Cir. 2013) (concluding Justice Soto-mayor’s concurring opinion “represents the Court’s holding” in Freeman). The plea agreement between Quinn and the Government provides for a specific term of 300 months’ imprisonment that is clearly set out in the agreement. The agreement does not contain the calculation of an advisory guidelines range or any statement that the proposed sentence was based on the Guidelines. Freeman, 131 S.Ct. at 2698 (Sotomayor, J., concurring) (<HOLDING>). Further, the plea agreement specifically
holding that the maximum revocation sentence is the top of the guidelines range holding if the plea agreement was not conditioned on the sentencing guidelines an appellant is not entitled to relief because his sentence is not illegal 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 sentencing guidelines commentary must be given controlling weight unless it violates the constitution or a federal statute or is plainly inconsistent with the guidelines itself holding a sentence is not based on the guidelines unless the plea agreement itself expressly uses a guidelines sentencing range to establish the term of imprisonment