wait just a second let everyone get settled taken that issue from the discussion issue to we know where it goes the only possible issue in this case would be still remaining i think is it's only there and i think that's fairly w girlfriend for a time as we talked into buying a gun that walked off so we don't have a plus five it has to be the otherwise extends they don't believe the evidence shows otherwise extend the government offer th theory that musta sold these things to the unknown persons they also argue that because he deposited some amounts of money up particularly large amounts of money but some amount of money with bank tellers there he was involving the bank tellers puzzle over ten thousand dollars they said sir you realize you have to report that he went away and came back later it wasn't so so the bank teller was not helpful they made a notation of that and they know they so it never pleases me to have to say this but it is true in this case that davis is presently binding precedent and that the nine twenty four c count which is count twenty three which is linked discreet we would say although generally of course our government would argue that full removed would be appropriate in this particular case it's so discreet and because the argument that because the government will support hands that a three b one point one issue of the dean and it's a very important to set the stage for more what information the district court came into the sentencing with did the fans have first si should look so i think you should look at from five three nine one to five three nine eight and very much in particular and five three ninety and then it five three nine six saying there is that even when the district court took the mandatory minimums into account which is the issue that's the issue that has to live with his raising it acknowledged that it could go lower and it wouldn't go lower and it said nope i think i know that nine twenty four is high but two forty is absolutely my my view of the sentence when you go to five ninety three ninety six ninety six i'm sorry fifty three ninety six the district court essentially says the same thing i'm not going to read all of it but i'm going to read this one sentence but i will not do that because it is my explicit finding that two hundred forty months is a sentence that is sufficient but not greater than necessary to satisfy the factors of thirty five fifty three for all of the robberies and all of the money laundering that you engaged in for me to manipulate that would be manipulation as i have stated and i will not do it because i find that to forty months is a reasonable sentence the consecutive mandates are mandated by the court of congress and they are what they are that brings me i think to the to the next point about why there is no dean error here because the court there is responding to the fact again backroom that lewis has asked for as and seen a one day sentence on all of the non non twenty four c counts and but i don't think the district court could have been clearer in acknowledging that it could be pursuing to dean it completely understood dean that it could look lower under thirty five fifty three than it had but it would not do so because it felt that two forty was a reasonable says under any circumstances finally i just  sentences not the guidelines that's it page twenty two of his reply brief even if that were true that's not all error goal error is about guideline calculation a thirty five fifty three a sentence i mean  assuming that the district court in all just the three b one point one in a minute but assuming that the district court was correct in its guideline calculations a thirty five fifty three a sentence could never be goal error because the district court there is at the zenith of its discretion with regard to imposing a sentence theoretically that could be anything from time served to life at that point now i'm not talking about subsequent reasonable mishear i'm just saying that that's the radically what's on the you know what's on the table it's inherently not about calculation it's about judgment and it's about weighing the thirty five fifty three factors to arrive at a fair sufficient and reasonable sentence which is what this district court said it was trying to do i believe that this is an improper attempt to collapse goal and procedure procedural and substantive reasonable is into dean's process analysis and i don't think this court should allow that ultimately the best case for the government is it is dean itself because all the dean says is that the district court may eat or should consider the effect of a mandatory statutory sentence when fashioning the non mandatory portion of the sentence that's eleven seventy six to eleven seventy seven and dean and indeed the last line of dean is this nothing prevents the sentencing court from considering a mandatory minimum under nine twenty four see when calculating an appropriate sentence for the predicate offense dean is not about process in the sense of whether or not the district court should consider it before something worse after something it's just saying you have the discretion to look at this now i'm going to turn to the three v one point one enhanced and of course this is completely factual than the burden is on lewis to show that the district court did not clearly err in its account of the evidence that supported the enhancement this court can affirm on any basis  it just has to be plausible in relation to the record as a whole and this court can't reverse or should not have let's put it that way even if it would have made a different decision had it been sitting is  course was on the government however at sentencing under the burden of under preponderance of the evidence the criminal activity here the government showed was did involve more than five persons or with otherwise extensive that enhancement can take any person who's involved in the course of the offense whether witting or unwitting into account the evidence was overwhelming here that of course he was the organizer meter of the conspiracy that mr grubbs was involved that miss a free he was whether willing or unwilling she was the person who bought the gun and that there was an unidentified man who affect the strong so ohio robbery and that there was at least one person to whom lewis sold the stolen jewelry whether wittingly or not the government did prove that although it was interesting that in mr lewis's reply brief at page sixteen he says that the government proved two such sales occurred so that's another two people so now we're up to seven but even if there had been five or more people otherwise extensive can conclude just for people which would take out all the unknown bank people and all of the jewelry people and i would direct this court to the district courts comments at sentencing in overruling the three v one point one objection which is at five three three three to five three three six and there the district court noted that this was a carefully devised plan it involved interstate and in trust travel he called it an entirely sophisticated scheme that you relied upon other people to carry out it was otherwise extensive because of its very nature it also alluded to the numerosity of the robberies which was fourteen it is true enough that the actual ammo of the robbery which is run into a store with a gun threaten people grab a bunch of very valuable jewelry which is part of its sophistication because there is a part of it in his that mr lewis did in fact case these stores did try to figure out which stores would have the kind of diamonds that he wanted so yes the that actually mo is not sophisticated but sophistication is not the cynic one of otherwise extensive he case  tastes the stores he found fences for the jewelry in new york city so that's a whole other dimension to it and let's face it the average snatching bread robber is not making millions of dollars and this  was worth almost one point six million dollars that's what the that's what the government proved out at trial in short there was no error in the four level and handsome and and therefore no go era because the guideline range was properly calculated so for the following reasons the government would request the following relief we would present the court remain in this case to the district court with instructions to excise the nine twenty four c conviction related to count one of the indictment from the judgment and before the judgment to reflect its removal from its previously impose sentence however if this court finds which we don't think it can but if this court finds that the district court erred in its calculation of the guideline range with regard to its inclusion of the three v one point one four level organizing leader in hanson the government would request that the but the error that i'm complaining about is the judge violated thirty five fifty three day one and we know that from the very thing the judge said he said i wouldn't assess the sons the sentence is somewhat too  and he had the ability to dress the fact that the sentence was too hot the sense is too high and it's not all mandated by congress in which case it can't be too high but if he has discretion and the sentence is too high as one day versus twenty years it's true that standby counsel asked for a one day sentence that doesn't mean that the judge had to pose a one day sense of course but when the judge is saying the twenty year sentence makes the aggregate too high years we would still argue that for forty one year old man that fifty two year old a fifty year sentence is pretty long and maybe greater than necessary and so i think the i get package does come in and i think