gone satisfied also received is significantly higher compared to the sentence imposed to an equally situated defined and i'm referring specifically to  the primary argument in your brief there was an error in the criminal history class a criminal history category for your client which you do you care to address that oh yes  churn what we say is that in both cases there is the same we're talking about the stink conspiracy which is straight i don't i don't think you cited any authority at all for the proposition which we're trying to assert i mean this was a he was seven she completed a sentence or was a subsequent ar there's not a period of any time overlap between the earlier conspiracy who later conspiracy his role was different i don't i just don't understand what the logic or the but why we try to do was to bring up as and he sure ok that's where you have a conspiracy that was charged twice when the second when the prosecutor filed the second time you can see that there is an overlap in terms of the time because a second oh my enticement indicates that that knew to the people that he knew and joe point was operating when he returned and he knew each morning that oh sure and so what i'm trying to say is that for example the five fifty three factors and any mitigating any mitigating factors but i let you start by addressing mr gonzalez models first claim of procedural on reason to on reasonability the district court to not commit error offense of conviction it with us constitute relevant caught we then look to the commentary which provides the exact answer in this case which is that because there was an intervening arrest and an intervening sentence conduct associated with a prior sentence of which provides that offense conduct associated with a sentence that was imposed prior to the acts were missions constituting the instant federal offense is not considered as part of the same course of conduct or common s went after he served a sentence he participated in a new drug trafficking conspiracy and fact the example in that comment gives basically almost the exact same situation as here where the example states a defendant was convicted for the sale state prison sentence is considered a prior criminal history not as part of the same course or conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction that is exactly what is happening what happened here in the sentencing guidelines provide a clear answer and that is that the court correctly kalki used his prior sentence for purposes of his criminal history and not as relevant context of the court did not error much less error that was clear obvious as for m co defendants or relevant defendants whose p s r as i should also look at to get the full picture were just those to do it for purposes of the arguments made in this case correct that is correct but that is the exception rather than the rule and when we have looked at specific co defendants this court has repeatedly said that you must compare apples to apples and if there are material differences between the co defendants that explain the sentencing disparities that then there wouldn't be a reversible error in any case to the extent that there was any error any error was not clear or obvious lastly just to address the issue of substantive reason to reasonability after the court correctly calculated the guideline sentencing range from eighty seven to one hundred eighteen months the court proceeded to evaluate seller and now he was a leader and a drug point owner and that he had the opportunity to to rehab but instead he chose to reengage in criminal activity the court also made reference to two facebook postings that he location same roles same drug trafficking operation and he can even do so within a year or two years and we will be here defending our representing other defendants in those cases who