the disparity here is mind boggling, and I understand that. And I recognize that.” J.A. at 211. This statement is inadequate to save the sentence. Defendant made two arguments based on sentencing disparities, and this statement lacks any indication that the district court understood those arguments. Additionally, nowhere in the record does the district court reveal that it understood Defendant’s argument that his age counseled in favor of a lower sentence. The district court’s cryptic statement is also conclusory, thus engendering uncertainty as to whether “the district court adequately considered and rejected [Defendant’s] arguments regarding proper application of the § 3553(a) factors or whether it misconstrued, ignored, or forgot [Defendant’s] arguments.” Thomas, 498 F.3d at 341 (<HOLDING>). The differences between Defendant’s sentence
holding that a memorandum given to the employees supervisors was protected speech when the memorandum alleged criminal wrongdo ing holding that the district courts failure to give consideration to the sentencing disparity that would result was another reason the defendants sentence was unreasonable holding that where the original drug quantity determination is not specific enough for the district court to determine whether it has the authority to reduce a defendants sentence under  3582c2 that court may make new findings of fact that are supported by the record and are not inconsistent with the findings made in the original sentencing proceedings holding that district judges statement that i certainly have received the sentencing memorandum read it and understand its presentations did not indicate the required consideration of the defendants arguments bracketed text in original recognizing that sentencing judges have the discretion to reject any sentencing guideline but no judge is required to do so