the dice comes up by at a completely different number then i can do whatever i want at this particular situation judge congress tells the government that if there were no further trial if she was under three easy one point american because we hate his religion something really unconstitutional yes that would be bad then at this point then why bother putting any constraints on the government the government doesn't have to conform with the intent and the common founders under government authority if the government can find that the defendant accepted responsibility quickly and they didn't have to prepare for trial there to give one point if there was no judicial oversight over that one point then then then then  district judge calculated what you want that's the problem the way that the calculations done by the government and the government and the the court given my client the minimum role which is the second issue instead of starting at thirty six and going off because he didn't take this matter to trial and anything any it needed to this matter quickly so that would have put him at level twenty five which would have been a fifty seven to seventy one given the fact that the judge gave him the bottom end of the rang seventy to eighty if the government if the if the court would the so disposed you would have gotten the bottom end so he was looking at saving two years off of his life so i'm asking the court yes at the bottom end my client deserves about a fifty seven to seventy one chance my client my client does not preserve any of this trial issues the only thing he preserves for appeal is the sentencing and i think there's a part there's a there's a a chinese wall between trial issues and sentencing issues three point three one point one talks about trial and my client waves all trial issues when he pleads directly to the court without any reservation the only question is this part is his right to appeal it's the sentencing matter and that has to be done reasonably as far as the last issue judge is concerned is the findings of the court that basically they reiterate the statute under two the one point one basically my client is a minor role all he did was get paid a few first have to understand and properly calculate the guideline guideline sentencing range before you can determine that i'm saying that he should have been one level below he should have been a fifty seven to seventy one and then made his resume his findings under could make a three five five germination he has to go through proper calculation and that's what needs to happen and it wasn't happened here the last thing i asked the court to do is that i asked the court to look at the rodrigues laura in light of the  i think there we have a completely different and it's very confusing first practitioners i would ask the court to consider trial issues and sentencing issues when determining that i reserve the rest of my time thank you gentlemen court's booker authority the defendant receive the same sentence he would have received if you got everything he asked for here again the range for the guidelines was one hundred eighty eight to two hundred thirty five months are you able to hear me are not able to hear me i'm sorry i'm trying to bend over and then the court gave him a nine level variance which incorporated the minor role reductions that the court looks in the record but the varying variance and compassed was the p s r reasons in paragraph fifty in second there there's no clear air in calculating the guidelines just as judge new noted three one point one gives prosecutors the power and not the duty to file the motion and i hope the court receive the twenty j letter that we filed government's decision not to move may be based simply on a rational assessment of the cost and benefit that would flow from moving and in this case the prosecutor determined that an irrational assessment of the costs and benefits that the senate had not entered into a plea agreement in their collaterally prejudice if the court doesn't have any further questions i would just ask that you affirm the judgment and one of the things i noted when when this parent your was speaking if she started at level thirty eight there in lies was one of the issues i believe that the court should have started thirty eight the shark started at thirty six because the purity was never admitted to it's a change of bump again that's two more levels that that the judge did not or considered in sentencing my client seventy to eighty months which he would have started thirty six so again as the calculations go my client would have been in level twenty four which would have been fifty seven to seventy one given my client's demeanor and and apologetic nature he should have gotten fifty seven months just within about the minor role sure judge what do you understand you know the  ation report the facts or just just the record it just doesn't show a basis for a minor role reduction of the guideline you are in that particular case what was but yet nonetheless when it got to the thirty five they said well he's just a c asian officer made the recommendation prior to the sentencing hearing what there was is that after the sent after the probation department wrote their report we actually had a rehearing my client went under oath he actually testified in front of judge th presented evidence which was not reflected in the plea in the in the report so what happens is judge the fact it was able to look at my client the judge's dinner and basically saw it for himself what his role was and if you read judge the park as words you can't maybe that was in the record i'm not sure that i saw it but just the part that nonetheless felt that he didn't merit the role reduction under the guidelines but nonetheless when he got to the right he repeated exactly what he did he repeated the