united states took the position that if you can take it the way it's written or if you don't then we will pursue more serious criminal charges mr taylor faced with that proposition accepted that he accepted the fact that well we don't agree with them bargain that he bargained for in fact he got something worse he was bound not to object but the united states was free to accept in a answer to to it what exactly and has been here but one of the things they agreed to was a two level reduction in conflict with i guess i believe this paragraph eleven which is the stipulated guidelines and i guess that's where the case kind of boils down not a sure they can recommend a sentence within the range found by the court and we recognize that the stipulation though what's its purpose i mean if they're going to do that anyway yes then the defendant gives up the right balance and hansen's under the guidelines and he's a no win situation and that's what the  that the parties not intentionally of course but make errors on occasion where the district court will find that it sees the guidelines differently which is what happened here yes right and  so when the advisory range sure contrary to mr taylor's wishes increases ninety eight does still provide protection to mr taylor because it prevents the government from arguing for example same time the defendant was precluded from challenging the enhancements with that have been stipulated in the gut i understand the government could take the position that they could record that they can't recommend and departure upward but in essence that's what they did can search director can look at the pretty centric forks and look at the transcript of the sentencing hearing and the court will not find any facts to support that five of one handsome i will hold on hold on that in the thirty five fifty three now why don't why don't those facts support the pattern enhanced it because it no point at no point did mr taylor stand up and say hold on i don't know what you're talking about that the individual depicted in the in the images in the video is absolutely not my stepdaughter at no point did he say anything like that because he had agreed not not there is a picture of his genitals on or near a child's put the question is does that create a pattern of activity which in that mind the court may have found that it did i mean that's not that but the point here is is that we we were able to argue that the court goes we agreed otherwhile and the position of mr taylor is when we give concessions not to argue about it we accepted that that with if those facts came forward the court may well find applied we accepted that but we also accept that the united states would agree which stipulated to an offense level thirty one and would go forward with their obligation make the recommendations accords with that stipulate with that binding been resolved by the court through an adversary proceeding rather than an agreement and then they would have either come before this court or not getting on how they were resolved mr taylor position is really very simple it is in a simple position is that he gave up his right to a trial he gave up his rights to to challenge enhanced missiles that presented by the united states which may or may not have been found by the court and he didn't get what he was bargained for and that's in essence what his argument is he believes  case should be remanded back to the district court with instructions that the that the united states comply with the terms of the plea grima and that the court then sentence in accordance that recommendation and going to the recommendation i think all of us that have done this l have no united states recommendations very important to the district court and in fact the district court often accepts that recommendation because they trust the united states has probably more information the court knows about the offense you know offender and other things had additional sentence but we believe that had the united states advocate essentially in that range the court would have been more likely to have accepted and imposed a sense within the range rather that the bottom of the range advocated by the united states which is  please go with the wrong calculation if that were the case we'd have a different sort of appeal i'd also say that the plea agreement factual basis does not say on or near says touched i think i don't want to go