section fifteen thousand to be two is narrow this was meant to be a sort of a tree to make sure that defendants didn't languish in jail in this era and so what d the statutory language requires is that the district court provide specific reasons that the sensing can't be further delayed without serious harm to the interests of justice so it's not just the risk of serious harm to the interests of justice it's not just with sentencing comport with the interest of justice we need facts and circumstances in the record to show that in last sentencing happens here and now over video there will d be serious harm to the interests of justice and the circumstances in this case simply don't don't understand your preferred to be challenging that he knowingly and volunteer only consented correct so mr kaufman waived the claim that the findings were insufficient that if if the court had made proper findings then it would have been fine but he didn't make proper findings that that's waived but mr kaufman cannot win any of the requirements in rule forty three dollars that sentencing proceeded in person and he cannot wave or he cannot authorize the district court to do something it's not authorized to do but put into the article forty three why can't he wave in it why can't he waiver why hasn't he waived his right to challenge the court's factual findings for the basis for proceeding under the cares act he he has but he's not challenging in this appeal those factual findings that this is a it's an objective question as to whether in this case serious harm to the interests of justice would have resulted it if there were to be a delay and that's that's the only paper on what the district court can go forward the a video under the cares act is if those facts and circumstances are presen it's the difference as the supreme court has described it between something that a court would be authorized to do if it if it followed the right procedure and something that the court just simply would never be authorized to do and so our argument is not the findings were insufficient but if if proper findings said made and it would have been fine so i want to make sure i understand your argument that the one of the requirements to proceed with sentencing under the carers act and the only one you're challenging is the district court's finding that for specific reasons the sentencing in the case can't be further delayed without serious harm to the interest of justice you're saying that's not a a factual finding of the court that that you have waived you're saying to somehow that's an objective legal question i think that yes i think the question of whether serious harm to the interests of justice with the result is an objective question and i suppose there's there's a question of you know how the court reviews you know the determination under the  sector itself says that requirement is met if the district court in a particular case finds for specific reasons that the sentencing in that case cannot be further delayed without serious harm to the interest of justice so the care sector itself says it's a factual determination by the district court why haven't you waived that factual determination by consenting to proceeding to the videotape sentencing or the video conference tests sentencing in the st place well you know what the cares act supposed is that there are going to be cases where serious harm to the interests of justice would what result from notice or knowingness of your client to waiving his right to appearing in person or agreeing to proceed under the care said i don't know how you have waived that so let me let me put out a hypothetical let's imagine that there's a case where any reasonable jurist would agree no serious harm would result from a delay so it does not qualify for this video sense and under the cares act in that case if a defendant consents to have the district court go forward d nonetheless over video he would be agreeing to have the district court essentially exercise an authorised authority distort court still made a finding that it had to proceed and further delay which would result in serious harm to the interest of justice that finding has to be grounded in facts and a district court can't just say i make the finding and and so everything's forever waved you know and i trust district judges to think this requirement seriously right i think that again the effort of going in circles the problem is that without serious harm to be interest of justice the district court was not authorized by law to conduct the sent rights go along with that proceeding and that's governed by rules forty three but the statute provides this interim  dot gap procedure for conducting video conference sentencing proceedings if these boxes are checked and all the boxes were checked here and there was consent and so i'm not clear about what the problem is there isn't any question of the court's authority here this is not a a question of judicial power it's a question of process and procedure yeah i suppose the everybody agrees that that's finding of wrong but there is no serious harm to the interests of justice if there is no serious arms of the interest of justice that cares act does not apply to the  video conferencing over the cares act is authorized only if it's serious harm to the interest of justice would result from a delay and so if the character goes ahead if you're not why it had not consented we would review that factual finding by the district court under clearly erroneous standard and maybe it would be clearly erroneous but here there's consent and you have agreed that you are not challenging the district court's factual findings and that was factual finding and under the cares act is supposed to be a factual finding by the district court right well let me just sum up if i may that the the problem and in this case and i understand the point about consent but if these judgments are under a viewable we're essentially saying it district courts determination that serious harm to the interest of justice would result is never review in a court of appeals all a district judge needs to do is say the words and it will never be reviewable because they'll only go forward if the defendant consents and i think that would be rather elegant then it could certainly object when the court makes that finding and say well wait a minute no that's not in the interest of justice i no longer consent he certainly could but there's the problem here is that the defendant himself should not be the one in charge of making sure the district court it hears to the rules at sentencing for in person sentencing the right along to the public as much as the defendant we want to make sure we don't have that somebody lying just simply because all the parties think this is the more convenient way to go that's really my concern is if we say the defendant consensus that's on reviewable who's disciple defendant in the future from the saying that i just do it over video the court of appeals will won't reverse out jokes and he he could have objected which is an awkward position in one sentence because he's consenting to the procedure our the rudest sufficiency of the findings as you point out is an actual question and the serious harm to the interests of justice doesn't encompass just mr coffin's interest it can be a broader interest to the interests of justice and so therefore there is a reason that a defendant erratic says you can waive your right to be present at sentencing when you are voluntarily absent but that doesn't seem to fit the situation here because the defendant was present just be a video company i didn't mean to make that this and it seems that we don't even need to address the rule forty three and but they issue because we have a statute here which allows for this alternative procedure under the circumstances as long as the j extent that the record should have been better developed at that time i you can see from the exhibits that i supplement the record with how this bt the sentence saying came a problem this was not intended to be if u t c discuss the findings and then we get to the court after the judge makes that statements and we could have provided some additional facts if we thought the judge's findings were lacking any we could have drawn attention to for example the factual circumstance is about mr collins were asked the statement that he gave to his agent where he indicated he set out on two different forms of supervision and been using drugs and dealing drugs none of those things themselves to putting him back out streams the result would have been if we delay in the federal sentencing he would essentially be housed in a county jail indefinitely awaiting the federal standard that is not going to our require evaluation after the covered emergence period so rather than the court giving an opinion on the st two columns i think that just proceeding to the rd  lincoln about i don't think it comes from him but it's basically if if you call a dog's tail a leg how many legs does a dog and people say well it has five because you call the tail a leg no the dog still has four legs just because you call something something doesn't make it so and so that if that's the argument here the there were there were no serious harm to the interests of justice the district court saying there were doesn't make it so and without serious harm to the interest