to have committed an error or oversight.”). We previously held that Poulin’s argument — “that the child-pornography guidelines do not approximate the goals of sentencing when applied to defendants convicted only of possession who have no history of contact offenses” — is a valid argument that a sentencing judge must address. United States v. Martin, 718 F.3d 684, 687-88 (7th Cir.2013). The judge was thus required to consider it, and then provide reasons explaining his acceptance or rejection of it. He did not do that here. Cf. United States v. Pape, 601 F.3d 743, 749 (7th Cir.2010). Additionally, this is not a situation where we can be confident the judge “implicitly” considered the argument in fashioning his sentence. See United States v. Poetz, 582 F.3d 835, 838-40 (7th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). The judge here explicitly stated that he did
holding argument not waived for failure to object where party previously raised argument and district court considered and rejected it holding that the record must reflect both that the district judge considered the defendants argument and that the judge explained the basis for rejecting it holding that there is no error when a district judge does not explicitly discuss an argument if it is apparent from the record that the judge fully understood the argument on the point and implicitly considered and rejected it in imposing a lenient belowguidelines term of imprisonment holding the prosecutors argument if it was there they can bring it to you was not an improper jury argument holding the government waived its argument on appeal that the defendant did not have standing to challenge a search when it failed to raise the argument to the district court