please the court as the corps aware as of friday afternoon the government has confessed there on all eleven money laundering convictions that would challenge and agree that this matter must be for me and for every sentencing of course except the government's confession in addition we ask only that consistent with the arguments in our brief that the court provide guidance on the issue of recent sane and permissible factors to the district court upon remain and unless the court has any questions aggravating litigation such as multiple frivolous motions is not grounds for withholding a reduction in the sentence and just so here we argue that a defendant's aggravating review there were indications that mr lewis was defending himself consistent with some identified personality concerns and so that was paranoia yes  unless the court has any further questions i will make myself available for additional questions on my rebuttal thank you not just the initial nine that we can fester briefs in our brief and i apologize to the court for the wait notice argument was not made in bad faith but upon further consideration with input from from colleagues from our innocent victims on one side of the transaction and then mr lewis on the other and while we generally agree with the general rule that certainly a money launderer must obtain proceeds before he can launder then we don't see that as an invariable rule it's one that should apply in this case but there are exceptions to that rule i think but it wouldn't apply in this case and so that's why we're asking the court to to vacate t convictions on all eleven money laundering accounts and then it would have to go back to the court for recess and sing because the consecutive nature of the sentence as well as the calculation the advisory guidelines i reasonable the determination was that the district court made in that it was adequately explained but there was an enormous departure from the guideline range i understand he's a difficult that person to deal with  and the judge said he was like more like a real thin than a typical defend him but he really gave the explanation why increase of one to three or four years would have been sufficient i mean it was a consecutive sentence  and he made several statements about him at the time that i have some issue with your honor and so i realize we can't give an advisory i mean she raised that issue and what kind of get it so we're not going to give an advisory opinion but that is something that i find troubling we we note that and certainly take it to heart but what i would if i could point this out though that judge edelman you asked the question of court never consider this i don't think it is off off the radar of the district court to be able to consider the conduct of a defendant before the district court unlike united states versus per now this vexatious as an annoying there was conduct that he undertook that was obstructionist in nature throughout the proceedings and so i think the district cour have this big get i mean we have this big big divergence from the guidelines with very little explanation so i don't think you can not be taken into account it certainly can be taken into account but some of the language use was fall today especially given the position that we are in your honor with having confessed confessed error i know that there were other issues that the court had raised that amicus agreed with our position but unless there are questions from the court of those we would the court other than what we've conceded are on the sense in issue what affirm otherwise affirm the judgment of the district court right i don't hear any questions thank you very much anything else