to focus first obviously first on the one sentence one thing that the courts sacked the courts that i did make a slight adjustment that has to deal with the bracket that i was and that's why it's one hundred four  basically the board said that it was good if it fits the standards within the guidelines range and i think that's an indication that the court did not give in this case consideration to what they medicating an aggravating factors were but simply wanted to sentence defendants somewhere within the guidelines range but looking beyond that one sentence the record in this case doesn't show that the court actually exercise its discretion and determined that one hundred four month sentence is sufficient but not greater than necessary to conform with the purposes of sentencing the defendant was a low level drug dealer he was  suffering from post traumatic stress disorder untreated it was a serious illness and he's been suffering it from what he seems since he was a child eight years soul at that time it's it seemed to have started the symptoms started when he found out by watching television and christmas day that his mother was raped and shot while he and his seven years old brother were waiting at home to open their christmas presents and these symptoms seem to have been lived in violent communities sixteen people murdered several of his uncles one murder one of his uncles election murder in his grandmother's backyard he was beaten by gangs because he was not a member of a gang but lived in gang and do get involved in domestic violence as mr i want was additionally people suffering from p t s d and specially when it doesn't get treated it tends to get involved in high risk behavior such as violating the law and getting in trouble with the law not but his history shows that while he did have several domestic batteries and criminal damage to his ex girlfriends property so he had a have several conviction thereafter but they were for not very serious offenses driving without a license and driving uninsured vehicles so he did not have a continuous history of serious violations of the law since with age she supposed to be ecstasy to an undercover informant but he does not have a history of violence not since one thousand nine hundred eighty other than the two domestic gatherings at the options are numerous they can be in the hospital if they need to be they can receive the effect of intensive mental health treatment there's a lot of options it seems likely that the only time he's going to get the treatment  says i understand that you are suffering from the fact that you hurt people close to you so he's being aerated punished by the fact that he hurt himself and his loved ones i don't see that as a reason to give them or a sentence that's a reason to give them last or sentence because he's already be out fraud she was kidnapped and forced into prostitution he basically saved him from the lives in the streets he's been a committed son since basically the age of eight or nine when his mother was raped and shot she has been mental health treatment helps a lot of people but it does require effort on the part of the patient that seems to be in mitigation of a lot of people to hell and they seem there's a high chance that mr monthly be helped by mental health treatment so  sentencing because you're doing a little bit better now than you did before and i'm trying to fit the sentence within the guidelines range they place the court my name is greyson walker i represent the united states the district court in this case did not treat the sentencing guidelines as presumptively reasonable the comment about mr months counsel focuses on where the judge said he made a slight adjustment due to the bracket he was in i think shows that the judge did not intend to oppose an above guideline sentence here as he had at the first sentencing hearing and the judge explained earlier why he chose to make that reduction it was an acknowledgment that mr history in characteristics had improved between the original sentencing hearing and the recent thing hearing so the court's attention in imposing the one hundred four month sentence was rightly focused on picking a term of imprisonment that was sufficient but not greater necessary to advance the purposes of sentencing the case is going to be done just four months so often hundred and eight months at sea creature that and the district court said as much but it an acknowledgement that the defendant had made efforts while in prison to improve himself judge the district court also adequately addressed the defendant's mitigating arguments with respect to a possible mental illness and the effects of aging on the risk of on the defendant's mental health argument the defense submitted a mitigation report that did not purport to diagnose the defendant with a mental illness it simply says that the defendant exhibit symptoms that would be consistent with post traumatic stress disorder anxiety anger and depression and the mitigation specialist said that mental health treatment quote would hopefully enable the defendant to overcome many of the feelings that have intermittently overwhelmed him those statements are far short of a diagnosis of p t s d in this case much less of a stabbing a causal connection between that undiagnosed condition and mr armand's long pattern of criminal decisionmaking that is why the judge said in response to that evidence i don't know if mental health treatment would help you in other words there was insufficient evidence on that point for the district court to say more with respect to the effect of aging on the risk of recidivism the judge acknowledged that currently forty two years old at the time he was on pretrial release in this case he was in his late thirty's so the judge is references to crossing the line including the bond violations show that whatever may be true about the effect of aging  judge did discuss the nature and circumstances of this offense by mentioning the harm that mr armont imposed on himself and others with respect to armand's history and characteristics again his long criminal record twelve criminal history points category five is all relevant to this defendant's history characteristics at the same time the judge acknowledged that mr armand had some talents and abilities that could have been used for lawful and it's legal employment he chose not to  defense the pretrial the probation office filed a supplemental p s r recommending a new set of supervised release conditions those were discussed at length at the beginning of the sentencing and then the court proceeded to consider thirty five fifty three  and imposed a term of imprisonment that was four months last in the previously vacated term of that were the terms of supervised release much different were identical or they corrected vagueness problems with the original conditions as well as delegation problems and the judge had intention to sentence him within the guidelines range but in this case we just don't have any adequate statement of reasons explained why it is only one month of the old high end of the guideline range the court did not question