Guidelines based solely on policy considerations, including disagreements with the Guidelines, if the court feels that the guidelines sentence fails properly to reflect § 3553(a) considerations.”)- Furthermore, it is not necessary to identify a court of appeals decision that has directly addressed the guidelines provision at issue as Booker provides that discretion across the board with the statutory sentencing factors serving as the guideposts. A district court’s failure to recognize its discretion to vary in this context constitutes procedural error. Accord Robinson, 741 F.3d at 601 (“[A] sentencing court commits procedural error if it fails to appreciate its discretion to consider evidence of cooperation under § 3553(a).”); United States v. Burns, 526 F.3d 852, 862 (5th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). That is precisely what the district court did
holding that a defendant was not entitled to a relief under section 2255 when he asserted that the sentencing judge who was not the trial judge was influenced by the sentence imposed by the trial judge on a codefendant holding that when the defendant admitted that he pleaded guilty for reasons other than to have the judge who took his plea sentence him the defendant could properly be sentenced by a different judge recognizing the range of discretion of the trial judge holding that defendant was entitled to have his sentence set by a judge aware of the discretion that kimbrough has announced holding that the defendant is not entitled to be sentenced by the judge who took his plea when the judge made no promise to sentence him