name we also have to take into account that under booker that guidelines are deemed advisory and under blakeley the factors which drive the we have a list of the victims and their l victims on which the defendant was never tried there were no findings beyond a reasonable doubt and so on so are you are you asking us to say that it was unreasonable for judge real to the district court jumps from fifteen to twenty three what's the best and of course the district court has the power to depart but that's not what he did let's suppose for a moment that we agree with you what's the appropriate remedy here then  thing the first time was when booker came down and then when we filed cancer to the second case amalie came down so we had a situation where the court was trying to make a decision over history category one under booker the court the district court certainly can say i would have done the same thing but i am lying it still has to be reasonable and  not reasonable time or it could stay the proceedings until the booker case was decided the after this court remanded to the district court under castro and that brought with that broad discretion then the supreme court's decision in booker was issued your honor and in a perfect situation have the court had the district court had the benefit of i'm only or even the second circuit decision in cross the where the second circuit also advised that at a minimum you know that the district court  should seek the opinions of counsel of the input rather of counsel but that the district court would not have to have a hearing here or the judge acted before any of those opinions were issued simply read booker and that necessary at this point because the record it's clear that the district court would not impose a different sentence here the district court has the benefit to sentencing hearings plus a multiple day trial it was very well familiar with all of the evidence in the case and the arguments admitted by counsel at two separate sentencing hearings and so i think that you know when the district court made its decision that it was not going to amend its asian even though it knew that the guidelines were advisory based upon the record that existed at the time before the district court and that is the record that the district court would be considering even post amalie it was a reasonable decision for the court to say i've looked at everything i consider the guidelines this is i think the sentence is it's correct the way it is i suppose the real of the real the bottom line question here is whether it's enough for the trial judge to simply say i would or i would with judge would have the benefit of the of the decisions and it would you know listen to at least accept briefs from counsel and consider their oath before answering the question for this court yes or no i think there should be  to request briefing doesn't that's something that can happen it says the district court should and it doesn't say it must now it does not the opportunity to go back to the district court and argue for fires within the range of what you would be able to persuade the district judges reasonable now your honor the government and satisfied with the spoken he has had the benefit of the four day trial and two sentencing hearings i doubt that either party would be able to change his mind at this point in time revenue agent testified at trial as to the losses committed by the telemarketing fraud based upon the bank records and based upon the note that the number of victims who had invested in th counsel was speaking i was thinking about our remedies here and it seems to me that we really don't have enough of a record for the court to make a determination because the what would you put in that brief that in effect would be presented to judge all goods different from what was presented to him twice before