attorney and the government were back before judge stein and mr anderson with that to be response and the district court relied on the original pre sentence report from two thousand and fifteen even though three entire years had passed during which time mr anderson like all human beings grow and evolve and none of the none of the parties request for the updated pre sentence report even between the original sentence and the resplendent this is a human being that we're dealing with and then something is a grave an important matter for everyone so having an updated pre sentence report would benefit all of the parties pre sentence report was not necessary that did not happen in mr anderson's case in mr anderson's case there was just a simple question and answer regarding mr anderson's completion of of hu another case jennings which is not a reported case i was actually seventeen years later where the court this court found that an updated pre sentence report was not necessary on the ground that the district court did not make any findings inconsistent with the original sentencing court and jennings cannot point to anywhere in the record indicating that the district court relied on any undisclosed new updated pre sentence report provided to explain mr anderson's current mental and physical condition he had already shown the court that he had made some progress in terms of living the law abiding life and his original sentence and that would have been had a pre sentence report been done the probation department would have added some creative to mr anderson's continued growth and blended more credence and credibility to to all the factors and that should be involved in response and thing to do not require an updated pre sentence report really just legitimize on an individual's mental and physical state which would have likely affected the outcome of the proceeding vacating his two year sentence of supervision are meritless and should be rejected st the district court did not err let alone play an error in not ordering a supplemental pre sentence investigation report rule thirty two requires only that the probation office conduct a pre sentence investigation and the need to report to the court before it imposes an here the probation office had conducted a pre sentence investigation and it had submitted a report to the court before to impose sentence there is no violation of rule the defined it was given and took advantage of the opportunity to provide new mitigating facts and mrs smith had noted that there was no opportunity or there was no present and filing in this case through counsel the defendant did submit a letter cry to resentencing where his attorney argued that no supervision was necessary and noted and noted fact about mr anderson in addition at the sentencing hearing itself the defense counsel and the defendant addressed the court and argue for no term of supervised release even if the district court did err on the plain error standard did the defendant must show that any error prejudicially affected  rights and seriously affected the fairness integrity or public reputation of the proceedings through presenting filing an advocacy attendant and the defendant gave the court information about his progress since of initial sentencing critically the defendant  the court should also reject be dependent argument that sentence counsel is ineffective at his resentment proceeding as case by amply shows district courts frequently conduct recent thing proceedings especially in limited recent proceedings without a supplemental p s r the defendant articulate no facts to support the view that his attorney acted below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms rather defense counsel argued prior to sentencing and at the hearing itself of the defendant should what is the evidence in the record that shows that mr anderson was actually given an opportunity to supplement is it original p s the fact that in sentencing his position is that this is quite routine this happens all the time we know that at least we believe that the cases show that it happens with some frequency  i don't practice in the district court any more it's been quite some time so i can't i don't know whether this is routine but if it is routine that defendants are we sentence without pre sentence reports anderson not be precluded from raising and ended in an ineffective assistance of counsel claimed in a later perceiving asked my question so i have no thank you so we will take this matter under advisement and