well again i'm peter henderson that i'm representing sebastian patterson you'll still be peter henderson in a can a few minutes yes that's right this is the two hundred dollar question in this case has to do with i think broader questions than just those that that we've briefed in this case there are several components to a criminal sentence term of imprisonment supervised release fine restitution special system several of those are discretionary the term of imprisonment term of supervised release the fine and in order to facilitate appellate review we leave the discretionary decisions to the district court but to make sure that the district court is actually exercising discretion we require the district court to explain why they're making the discretionary decisions they're making so in terms of the t e a discretionary decision of the district court and so in order for this court to be satisfied with the district court's exercise of discretion i think this court should insist on some sort of explanation under the factors that govern fines so imprisonment we have thirty five fifty three and a supervised release we have section thirty five eighty three and for fines we have section thirty five seventy two this is an act of discretion and let's take this case the district court in this case impose a fine of two hundred dollars and write and the judge could have said something like well i don't see any reason to go outside the gun on the range fine it's twelve thousand five hundred dollars the judge can just say all right i think the guidelines are fine and bang the gavel you know that you know there's no gavel the judge has to consistent with the cunningham cases consistent with the supreme court cases gall etc has no he doesn't that's not you're not correctly stating the holding of conning him specially the holding of cunningham in light of the supreme court's decision in reading and call the judge has to discuss a significant argument that all there was not implicitly addressed just by the nature of the sentence that's the holding of the coming you're right i don't see where there is a significant argument that is not otherwise addressed just by the nature of the sentence rita the supreme court held that the judge doesn't have to give any explanation at all if they just if the court of appeals thinks we can see what's going on here we're not going to contradict the supreme court you know no no you're right about that i think that i mean to say gall and a discussion of what a judge needs to do on under gall rather than than cutting him but the point is that there needs to be some window into why the judge is imposing this fine  from the record i don't know why the judge is imposing a fine i don't know if the judge does this in every case everybody gets two hundred dollars there's certainly a wide spectrum of practices in the district court  our clients have either a negative net worth or is zero net worth and so my experience in the district court is we never have any fines so there's a wide variety of practice and this just sounds like an argument that the supreme court was wrong because there is a wide variety of practice among district judge who's there is never any case where no explanation is sufficient and therefore we should not follow reader and  for everything in every case well you know we can't contradict the supreme court so you know that line of argument is dead on arrival ok i don't think that this contradicts the supreme court because i do think that there is a requirement to explain the sentence but that that will rest on our respective readings of gaul in any case the factors in this case we've got somebody with a negative net wor and it is unclear why the district judge imposed a fine at all whether this was related to promoting respect for the law deterrence punishment it should not be treated lightly and one of the things that the court said in thompson and related supervised release cases is that it was tired of the insouciance that's supervised release received by everybody involved so this case what we're asking the court to do is to recognize that fines are part of criminal sentences and they deserve attention as well you know for the questions i reserve the rest of the time for about oh thank you may please the court i'm telling you and i represent the united states in this appeal the district court did not plainly error here in imposing a modest substantially below guidelines fine of two hundred dollars in the case the fine imposed was consistent with the probation officers recommendation and the facts that were set forth in the pre sentence investigation report among those facts were that although the defendant did not have assets to pay i guidelines range fine he faced a term of imprisonment and can make a limited contribution towards a fine through the voluntary participation in the inmate financial responsibility program the defendant did not object to that finding or make any argument or bush present any evidence related to his inability to pay a fine to the district court in line with the finding imposed able low guidelines fine of two hundred dollars which is as the pre sentence investigation report indicated it's a limited fine and as your honor is indicated is one twenty below under the guidelines range that was not objected to and he was given an opportunity to ask the court to elaborate on the court's findings the defendant and not do so the defendant's argument is therefore waived and it also falls fails on the merits just one thing your honor i thought i heard my friend use the term waiver and i want to make sure that this this case is not about waiver though i think your honour's thank you counsel the case was taken under advisement