if peace accord my name is ken carlson and i represent harvey right i want to start out by acknowledging the low guideline sentence that my client received is presumed to be reasonableness the burden is upon us to show that the sentence the judge durkin imposed was not reasonable and my argument is that although it was a below guideline sentence judge durkin clearly relied on the location of the properties of mr right status as a lawyer as well as the sophistication of the scheme in arriving at not only the guideline sentence but the low guideline sentence it is our position that plainly stated that he found all three of those to be aggravating factors you know arriving at the sentence that he imposed the one thing that i want to make clear to the court gives as i prepared for i mean it wasn't entirely clear from library the location of the properties or something that judge durkin considered as part of the sophistication of the scheme and so that really falls into that best argument it is clear that judge durkin after he properly considered the sentencing guideline range imposing the abuse a position of trust for mr right status as a lawyer  the sophistication of the scheme continued to rely on those factors again and again and again the end of the thirty five fifty three analysis and it is our position that that was weight he wishes to the aggravating and mitigating factors well judge clear that the vulnerability at these neighborhoods is a valid aggravator as is your client's status as a lawyer and therefore educated and bradley found that that was inappropriate to consider a factor that was already considered in arriving at the advisory guideline range again completed and just to the extent that the district court relied on commission of the sexual act until the lady of sentence an element not required for a conviction bradleys based upon so what was increased by two points pursuant to the guidelines for the commission of a sex act so what the courts seem to rely upon was not an above guidelines closely it's judgment a lot of substantially well and i don't think it should matter quite honestly whether it's a below guidelines on two or above guidelines and yet it's a factor that should be considered again a factor that's already been considered it matters a great deal the judge is using it to go with the guidelines as opposed to talking about it in evaluating the thirty five fifty three a factors and imposing a substantially below guideline defend its arguments in mitigation the real contention here is that the court weighed the factors in a way that the defendant does not like and but that is not error the defendant claims that the court came emphasis on certain facts in his thirty five fifty three analysis they're also used to calculate certain guttering hansoms nothing a statute this court's case law or the guidelines suggest this is improper defendant is not provide his court with any in fact proper consideration of the thirty five fifty three factors are by necessity going to include some of the facts they were used for guiding had spence such a sophisticated means and the abuse of trust in has been which was the case here the fed brought the case of bradley bradley does facts of the case to support that great departure that is all that bradley really stands for in addition to the argument that the defendant had the answers here the exact same argument was actually rejected by this court in united states v court said there is no double counting a multiple multiple county argument when it comes to considering facts in the thirty five fifty three analysis there were also used for thirty five fifty three but also used for a guideline hansoms fact as the very nature of ok well thank you very much both