involves three issues the district court in this case departed by a total of eight levels the first issue being a departure based on cultural assimilation and the grant of a four level the part or the second departure was and basically unexplained departure of two levels indicating that it was a combination of factors although it didn't need any individual factor and specifically the district court rejected bases for departure under the proffered factors that could have made up a combination of factors as well as the third departure would be holding that the criminal history points  assigned to a traffic conviction did not apply thereby entitling the defendant to a two level safety valve in total the defendant received eight levels of departure  the booker itself may not have in the pinon in fact and the reason for that is we're still back to the unreasonable ness task that the majority of justices of the supreme court found in the remedial opinion of i think because of the overlay of the now if i usury nature of the of the guidelines you can't necessarily say the district courts  consider things i think we're still back to coom united states we're still in the supreme court case and it talks about in terms of unreasonable search and then you're arguing for a more and more differential review test i don't i don't see how that helps your case any event if you're not calculating the guidelines right and and in this case the safety valve if you're if you're just throwing out a conviction because the defendant says so orally without any evidence without any testimony says if you make legal layers those are and reasonable oh those are errors of law that that the district court has made so i guess what i'm saying is you have to properly calculate the guidelines to get a baseline booker that anything other than what was done is grossly irrational right in terms of the district court's opinion yes now we start with that and we and i would be  i mean if the district court given an opportunity to reconsider in light of what you say is the appropriate guideline we do anything different from what has already been done because it's been made  you're right i agree and i think it needs direction from this court because we also know what the ninth circuit says is an appropriate and reasonable departure based on letterman and lippman does not apply to a drug crime in effect you're giving a non citizen a free ticket to committing crimes in this district because he can be treated more lenient non citizens different that's wrong if there's a disparity in sentencing the public corruption case you'd say well a mayor of a city that got convicted he's going to lose his office geez that's enough punishment in and of itself he shouldn't go to jail but in this case we do but you can't take a non citizen and say collateral matters outside the sentencing of france it's a public corruption case and a mayor that loses this job after a conviction well that's a collateral matter you know he can't vote and he is really  interested in voting you know the then you go beyond what the sentencing reform act intended and and you you start discriminating if you will on social economic on class citizens but that's another case well not exactly because what we have we have a non citizen committing a drug crime not because he came to this country but for economic reasons fits some make money and that quare to quote impose a sentence sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes that fourth and paragraph to section thirty five fifty three eighty two states that such purposes are which seems to suggest that cultural simulation is limited only to three hundred twenty six cases where there is a relation to the motive here there is no the be the newborn good we can do that but even if you can't i think putting lippman to the side we can still examine the record below and determine that under thirty five fifty under thirty five fifty three the court of decision committing any additional criminal conduct whatsoever with subject them to forty one months incarceration immediately at the low end of the advisory guideline range now the public is going to be protected guidelines and even impose a lesser sentence and still be three syllable because under the guidelines before it was generally prohibited to consider a number of factors under the five age one point one it all and unique tragic in the sense that here we have an individual who before he even turned one year old was brought to the united states and since that time has never left this country he's been here in the united states the entire time an adequate or an accurate understanding of the guy that's all that's and this court clearly did not right and we don't have a problem going back to the district court because record to say that he didn't know the proper was not the proffer we made a proper as a district court level the government never objected to the district court level to our proffer and the other coming back and saying there was no evidence no affidavit and we think that