... somewhere within the applicable[sentencing range]”), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 1467, 158 L.Ed.2d 121 (2004); United States v. Loeb, 45 F.3d 719, 723 (2d Cir.1995) (defining “total punishment” as what the district court "deems to be the appropriate sentence for the defendant’s convictions” within the applicable guideline range and affirming sentence of 71 months under § 5 G 1.2(d) where guideline range was 57 to 71 months and statutory maximum on each of two counts was 60 months); United States v. Parmelee, 319 F.3d 583, 593 (3d Cir.2003) (describing "total punishment” as a sentence selected from within the guideline sentencing range); United States v. Chase, 296 F.3d 247, 251 (4th Cir.) (defining "total punishment” as "the point within the guideline range des th Cir.1995)
holding that where a defendants guideline range is 121 to 151 months and his statutory minimum sentence is 240 months and the government moves for a downward departure pursuant to both  3553e and  5k11 the starting point for the departure is 240 months and the court is not limited to the low end of the guideline range in determining the extent of the departure holding that a potential increase in a guideline range from 2127 months to 6378 months did not raise due process concerns holding that total punishment is the precise sentence determined by the sentencing judge from within the appropriate guidelines range and affirming a 63month sentence where a jury convicted defendant of five counts each with a 60month statutory maximum where the guideline range was 51 to 63 months holding that where the guideline range is higher than the statutory maximum sentence the court should depart from the lowest range that could support the statutory maximum holding that a sentence of 71 months is proper under  5g12d where guideline range was 57 to 71 months and where each of eight counts of conviction carried 60month statutory maximum