violence mr rivera clemente was subsequently sentenced by the district court judge to three hundred twenty two months when the plea agreement that mr rivera clemente executed called for  contained a recommended sentence of two hundred seventy six months based on the numerous errors that we contend that the district court committed in terms of both the acceptance of mr rivera clemente's guilty plea the rule eleven hearing as well as the errors that he committed at the sentencing hearing we asked the court to vacate his sentence and conviction remand the matter to the district court the first matter that i would like to address with the court this morning actually has to do with mr rivera clemente sentencing hearing and it deals with the procedural reason illness of the sentence in particular it's the thirty five fifty three c one issue whether the district on that it was committed by the district court judge and therefore we can see that this court would review that under the plain error standard now of course as i just referenced thirty five fifty three c one requires the district court at the time of sentencing in open court to state reasons for imposing the particular sentence if the sentence is within the guidelines sentencing range and that range exceeds twenty four months really there can be notes here that the requirement that statute apply and now based on statements by this court previously the court can't merely state in general it's reasons for the sentence but rather must articulate why it settles on a particular point and that articulation essentially requires a district court to do two things first it has to identify discrete aspects of the defendant behavior and link has previously stated there could be there could be two outcomes for a violation of c one the first outcome could be that the court could make a sentence remand for finds that interview of the transcript that perhaps you can glean some of the rationale that the district court relied upon for fashioning the sentence that it did then it would it would have you wonder under the plain error rubric and then then what we would be looking at is you know whether there was error and whether my client could could prove that but for the error committed by the district court that he would have received a less harsh sentence then he did and we contend and we do contend in the grief that appellate review really is frustrated here by the the dearth of facts and discussion engaged in by the district court regarding why it sentenced mr roberto clemente to where it did the district court in gauged in a discussion with the victim's mother talked about how some of the cases that the district he was he was attempting i think to you to discuss the harm in terms of the on in which mr eric laments a engaged now that discussion doesn't suffice under gillman for  the seriousness of the conduct which you don't just walk in the middle of the day and do this type of thing and then he's within guidelines and it was your i was at the top and so you have a serious crime you have a judge saying i really think this was a serious crime nothing about the circumstances seemed to make it other than a serious crime so i'm going to give you at the top of the guidelines for this crime what's the problem with the well i think the problem comes in in terms of  something to the effect of if you and i agree that you're going to have this person executed and then we carry that out you know isn't that the same thing that the parties here and and  conflate the role that mr rivera clemente had relative to the murder for hire hypothetical that the district court judge was setting forth and while mr rivera clemente did did enter the base previously and was assorted off the base he and he alerted his friends to the fact that this new guard may have gone in he knew that they were going on they were going on the base to go and try to retrieve the gun i think that's that's a far cry from the murder for hire plot that the district court judge is discussing where the object of is that in the in the analogy or the hypothetical set forth by the district court judge the object was actually the killing that was the direct object of the crime that those folks were going to be committing whereas here they were going to be be between what the object of the crime in the in the district court judges hypothetical was versus what the aim and the unintended in certainly unfortunate consequence was here and in  our view the district court judge was improperly relying on on facts that were not in the record to sentence mr rivera clemente to where he sentenced him to and i think that certainly is the harm that mr rivera clemente suffered because you know given these these you know very big and improper statements by the district court judge prior to the sentence that he handed down which you prefaced by saying frankly this is what i'm going to do without citing any specific reason for why he was going to do what he did that really not only renders appellate review of the reasons for the senate's difficult  certainly establishes the harm necessary to reverse under the plain error standard thank you sentencing however has as as this court has stated before it may not robotically or a mechanic a matter go line by line to each of those factors during sentencing in order to comply with this mandate told defense counsel that he should feel free to discuss all these factors during its out of houston what happened here was simply that the district court weighed all those factors that seemingly favor fell in favor of what i meant against those that frankly did not were not as painted him in a positive light which rather serious seriousness of seriousness of the offense in this case the fact that other that these were saw what appeared to him to be a legit a firearm on the person of the security guard and then when they were escorted out went out and apparently went up for backup from his friends who brought those firearms logic dictates that if you have an intent to steal a fireman from the person of another you're probably going to be ardent or someone in your in your group is going to be armed in order to fulfill this this act as for the general subsequent reasonableness of the sentence here as is clear from the record it is a guideline sentence it is well below the statutory maximum of of life that was informed of true i'm sorry i lost my train of thought  h you want to judge any other issues or if the court frankly if the court doesn't have any questions the government all rest on the briefs and i'm fine thank you