criminal history category of I, his total offense level of twenty-five would leave him with an applicable guideline range of fifty-seven to seventy-one months. The thirty-six month sentence imposed would still be a thirty-six percent variance from the bottom of the guideline range. Although the sentencing guidelines are no longer mandatory, they must be considered by the district court in fashioning an appropriate sentence. We are still operating “within the framework of an advisory guideline scheme designed to reduce unwarranted sentencing disparities among similar defendants.” United States v. Saenz, 428 F.3d 1159, 1162 (8th Cir.2005). It is not reasonable to expect that other similarly situated defendants are receiving similar extraordinary reductions. Cf. Gatewood, 438 F.3d at 897 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Lazenby, 439 F.3d 928, 933
recognizing a similar exception to its rule with respect to corporations holding under similar circumstances that the california court of appeals finding of no pretext was unreasonable holding that the district courts failure to give consideration to the sentencing disparity that would result was another reason the defendants sentence was unreasonable recognizing similar duties holding sentence unreasonable when it fails to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparity among defendants with similar criminal histories who commit similar crimes