thirteen original convictions and it's hard to it's hard to say the seventeen month reduction is not sufficient but you have to look at the other cases nationally where individuals with less serious and more serious even agree just aggravating factors or sense the more time or have a guideline calculation higher than mr cameron's and then a se sixty months which would be the mandatory minimum in this case and that that that's one of the many red flags here that i think this court can focus on is that this sentence is above the mandatory minimum that would have occurred if looked at the question of disparity by looking at the cases he was most familiar with which is the cases which he santa is the district court did consider your national argument but you had simply provided a sort of list of cases with no basis for concluding that they were identical for the cases that the judge did consider quite closely now your argument appears to be that every district judge is required to look at every case saying it's procedurally unreasonable on lies he looks at every other case in the country no i'm not saying they are right that however well we don't have the resources available to do that but what he didn't do was look at any case nationally and that was only reasonable he looked at just his own cases and even then he didn't provide a fair analysis of what he knew the facts to be i'm sorry so what is it he should have can see the record well he is a very experienced judge and i am not taking issue with that at all the issue is that this court has previously disagreed with his sentences in child pornography cases and  national database looks like but this type of child pornography cases versus what it would cost was willing to do and i think what at a minimum judge we should have done was look to the list of forty nine pages of cases that were provided and called out the ones that looked the most familiar and to see whether or not there was any guidance to be gleaned from them and they're not just  it's states from all over the country to suppress to cases this florida cases it's not just one geographical area and he limited himself to his own cases in maine and then sentencing council do that i mean  enhancements under the child pornography guidelines so for example he addressed those cases where the images were more than those that mr cameron was convicted respectfully he he didn't do what he said he did he didn't do a fair job of looking at his own cases and explaining that the starrett and i think that's i think that's the problem that we're trusting here is he had to do the work he had to tell us what it was that he was looking at with each of the cases that he was considering and explain why mr cameron needed twice the sentence that mr king did and then we received the benefit this summer of  magistrates decision in maine which took it a step further in came mr king was back in mr king's back before this court this court indicated again it was sympathetic to the the  cut had found during the sentencing proceeding the original sentencing proceeding that mr king had violated the conditions of his release and has lied to the court during the sentencing hearing and these are t potential enhancements that mr cain didn't receive it is sentencing so while judge we cut was explaining to mr hebert and his lawyer at the sentencing hearing that you know king was in was not related actually in possession of additional information which making more like mr cameron's case because there were enhanced means that were not imposed as part of mr king sentence and that is really where from the properly calculated guideline range is unreasonable indeed it was one hundred seventy i'm sorry under twenty seven months variance from the properly calculated guideline range the seventy comes from the hypothetical range that by the way it cock with all due but just start with a number of images just briefly it seems like ican is all about looking at real offense conduct except when it comes to his own offense because the number of images on remand it was a confrontation clause issue as the court  knows and that issue by no means meant that mr cameron did not commit those transportation counts offenses it did not mean that he didn't transport that child pornography and it didn't mean that those victims fell out of opponents argument is that if he comes from work or with a less across the country of fifty or sixty other cases there is a judges need to go in and read the sixty plus cases that i quickly counted in the forty nine page memoranda to reach a fourth procedurally sound and substantively reasonable sense and it's clear in this case the judge would cock discretion we do and the reason i pointed out guideline i mean the images issue and the hypothetical range is not to say just what erred i'm just saying that mr cameron too got some breaks that won't be factored into that data just like mr king perhaps got some breaks does not mean discretion means that different judges may exercise their discretionary powers differently and that judge would cock upon reading of these transcripts he clearly looks the victims first and foremost to look at the  contempt of court conduct that started with the child pornography and his role as one of the lead prosecutors in the state of maine and conducting this  stone on this court's opinion and then in the second sentencing hearing he made it clear that's the heart of this issue is the disparity that might be created by these harsh guidelines are sort of out of whack i think is what it would cost call them and so he was clearly very much aware of the need to consider that explicitly so it was the other theme running through both senate hearings and with all due respect i think it's pretty clear that  incorporated that concern within his what proved to be one hundred twenty seven months downward variance i think mr cameron's going to judge clenches other comment about he was proposing a new methodology of how to go or the median sentence become nothing that's useful data but in terms of it's the product of other courts discretion and we don't know the various factors that went into that just like the eking relief here or in the district well i'm not so i think it's not as it's not as a secret that there is a lot of dismay over what the child pornography guidelines don't seem to be working and they are not necessarily a function of the commission's historical role in terms of setting and based on data and there are multiple ways to go just where were you what were the crack cocaine guidelines and how the evolution of this work in progress certainly under great debate and it will be i don't want to speculate but it's not unlike where we were with the crack cocaine guidelines where courts still had to properly calculate the range and they could exercise their him power after considering all of the unique factors of mr cameron's case over the seven years that judge one cock has worked with this case to reach a ultimately now coast book or a reasonable sente district court clearly did that in this case it's there for the questions will smith and thank you