up to that point that had been meted out by the district court in any of these cases of course some of that most of that is reflective of his status as a career offender but when we talk about the nature and circumstances of the offense he only became a career offender because it's still one end of a gram of methamphetamine for forty dollars and so under the the career center guidelines counsel at  sensing that well this individual survives because he he had some grand talk and he had some big plans and he knew but but drugs sold for but that's not unusual in the confines of this sting days of incarceration per dollar a day by the a t f and mr foster's the sentence was five hundred times more severe than the most culpable defendant using that analysis jacket and is stopped by police who do not know this person is self so that the level of although the harm that congress tried to punish is present here the risk of harm is somewhat lower given the circumstances of this were the subject of much litigation and and continued to be the subject subject of litigation and so the idea that other defendants were receiving consistently below guidelines sentences and sting cases that the a t f officers were arresting brokers but not arresting sources of supply because the target of this sting was a broker and so many people criminal networks to see if they could get in on the crazy white guys who came to town looking for guns and drugs and were paying too much would assume that just with the argument that was made before this could go through making now i think that that you're comparing apples and oranges your argument is in regards to these hundreds that there was an improper since in regard because he was giving away too much but doesn't doesn't the guidelines say that it's you compare it with what's going on in the entire country and that did you do that did you say that well this was the fit that he the sale not the firearm sale because as you know you can't be a career founder for just having a firearm but if you sold a drug and then you had previous crimes of violence or drug distribution of then says that of point where and average eight level increases at some point does that average increase become so unreasonable that under the totality of the circumstances such an increase is really indefensible given the nature blow both emphasize that he said he sold a small quantity of drugs because it was not sentenced to one hundred twenty months in prison because he sold a small quantity of drugs he was sentenced to that length of term because he  a repeat offender with a violent criminal history standing almost thirty years who sold the quantity of drugs who displayed every intention of selling vastly more than the quantity of drugs the district  found that he was someone who had every expectation of selling more drugs than he actually did and he was sentenced to that length because he has been a virtual playing the this was a think that the way he is talking and the specifics to back up the district court's conclusion that he at least had the expectation of selling more addition to the factor they've already mentioned fuck was despite being a felon in possession prohibited from possessing any guns discussed various guns that he had for sale with the confidential informant for selling that informant one of those guns those are the reasons on drug charges and that doesn't even account for the additional gun charges that he faced he's also said he is going back to these verities between other a t f defendants in this particular sta forfeit in their indictment as a proxy for the quantity of drugs that they had sold and then he comes up with eight days in jail per dollar of drugs sold kind of metroid but there's a further more serious problem with his argument about statistics we're not even looking at gun and drug offenders which which is pocket we don't have a category of statistics for those but we can only assume that if you that line with other defendants whose primary offense of drugs some of those other defendants don't also have gun charges so doctors actually may be doing better for the seriousness of his conduct compared to other defendant nationwide so your point is even without guns if we look at the career of printers and drugs nationwide ten the court to consider the fact that this drug offense was something that require significant punishment and that was before even considering the gun in the district court further noted that he had a significant criminal history that it could not just brush aside that long violent criminal history most recently involved a conviction for the attempted robbery for vasquez created in your hostage situation by trying to collect a drug that vice president forced to man for children present so you look at that criminal history you look at the thirty five fifty three factors the other factors that require the sentence imposed to afford adequate deterrents to protect the public and to respect for the law all of those factors support the sentence imposed