thank you honors my name is david nass with the federal defenders of montana and i represent the talent mr clement kank this case on appeal following a remain and it was first reversed on for procedural error and when it went back the district court judge sends mr king the same sentence three hundred sixty five months which represented one hundred seventy five months one count one for sexual abuse and one hundred nineteen months one count two for the child pornography but this court in the united states supreme court has noted that when you look at a variance you in determining the reasonableness of the sense you should look at the extent of the variance that's one of the considerations that should be taken into account now there are several ways you can look at the extent of this perry is the sense of one hundred seventy five months on count one was roughly a six fold increase from the recommended guideline range of that sends thirty to thirty seven months the variance on count two was roughly three to four years if you would have run them consecutively it would have been roughly twelve to thirteen years higher than what the top end of those two guideline ranges combined would have been and when they were grouped that was the issue that was reversed time it was roughly twice the top end of that guideline range respond where the government explicitly disavow that it was relying on any sort of procedural error this court nevertheless sitting on bond went through when they examined things like how the court looked at the nature and circumstances  zavala basically says that district judges need to explain why they are departing so that it permits meaningful appellate review is your challenge here to the fact that he didn't explain it well and well i guess what i'm saying is you know we review for abuse of discretion and the only way we can do that is to determine whether or not he has adequately articulated the reason why he fashioned the sentence the way that he did it and it looked to me because of the fact that it was there henri man from a prior reversal by our court that the sentencing judge here was quite careful to go through and explain all of the i'll call them aggravating factors that caused him to believe that to protect the public from a dangerous and reset of us defender who he apparently looking at two psychosexual about you asians that had previously been completed on your client and he ordered a third but for whatever reason fifth amendment or whatever that the client had declined to participate in  but those evaluations recount sexual molestation of victims as young as seven months and and repeated acts of abuse of children throughout the period and then conclusions by the examiners that he's not amenable to treatment that he's dangerous and in the district are concluded i don't know what else to do with you other than to warehouse you to protect future victims and you're asking us to determine whether or not that was a reasonable sentence under mohammad and that's why i asked what more does the district court need to do when it makes those kind of express findings to justify what is clearly a very long prison sentence for a young offender well maybe maybe a couple of things he disagreed particularly with the court's characterization of the earlier juvenile evaluations as showing these not anonymous to treatment i represented mr king back then i didn't represent him in this case but i did back then and that really wasn't what they said they said this is a kid that has a lot of problems they recounted the horrendous abuse that had been perpetrated upon him when he went to the  call it the normative school normative place where he was taken out as a juvenile by this judge and put into jail for nine years or whatever he was started to do well there there was at the time that this act in question this new case occurred is that correct that is correct my other question is that as i understand the stat max for these crimes even if you put them consecutive was fifty five years yes it's about six hundred sixty you're looking at the sentencing guidelines because that's one of the considerations that the court has to take into account the kinds of sentences available but then of course the guidelines were enacted to try to tell the courts where with and say zero to twenty years or very you know to the statutory maximum then others are getting substantially less than that then you're going to run into problems with disparity but we can consider the fact on your then the fact that congress thought at least for some some person who committed these crimes should be should get fifty five years there should be there someone out there that would be would get that yes i would concede that somewhere in the realm of possibilities but not to stiffen you were to say here  really what we're trying to examine in this appeal is whether judge had sentence of the defendant was substandard really reasonable it's a government's position that this is not one of those cases where th will exercise its judgment in contradiction to this district court it's not one of those rare cases where a defendant shows that the district court was substantially unreasonable as we've already discussed today the sentence rendered by the district court was approximately double the sentencing guideline range calculated by the court at the recent unsing the defendant did not object to that guideline range and the only objection cited and i'm not sure the district that you know that is to court really dealt squarely with that that there are infections disparities given other cases for much more i would call extreme conduct on the part of the lying impulsivity aggressiveness lack of remorse indifference to victims minimizing is harmful or out and in fact was diagnosed as having a antisocial personality disorder that was incurable i  you need to take a look at that terms of determining substantive reasonable missourian well i think judge hadn't looked at it with respect to this particular to find and that when he was thirteen years old he was having sex with a seven month old has cut his male cousin and other incidents soon as he's released almost from custody he is for the fifteen year old getting her pregnant and at the same time  convicted of raping and separate thirteen year old female and trying to purchase child pornography on the internet is just this it's a it's a very extreme demonstration of anti social behavior the judge a permanent restraining order and comments by one of the women that he had relations with that she was afraid he would hurt her child that may have been her you can see the timing here the march two thousand and eight  when he's caught by the fifteen year old mother of his child buying to trying to buy child porn on the internet may two thousand a he's found he rapes the thirteen year old out in the woods and then in august two understanding of the facts in this particular finance clear and present danger to the community and developing the sentence that he rendered in this ca and child pornography and there isn't any objection made at the time of sentencing and he's looking at all of that evidence i am i'm not quite sure what what your point is well i think it just keeps coming up he molested a seven month old infant i mean if true that's horrible but if it were only the seven month old but the record is replete with i lost count of the number of victims i'm not sure he knows how many people he's the last that over the years he was when he was twelve years old after he'd been horribly horribly sexually abused he there was some more egregious he was twenty she was close to fourteen in all other ways the way that the think of that testified it was consensual they drove up together they were kissing she got into the back of the car with i'm i'm i'm struggling to find a reason why i can declare that to be an abuse of discretion as substantively and reasonable when the district court went to such lengths to lay out all the