revoked for failing to comply with the can this condition of supervised release requiring her to spend this time in the program her conduct during that time and effort is necessarily material to evaluating the gravity of the violation and present mitigating information he was repeatedly interrupted by the district court when the court refused and a couple of occasions listened to the information and appropriate there is no right to present the relevant information my problem your honor is that there is no way to the district court decided without hearing the evidence that it wasn't relevant and  yes taylor had wished to present evidence to place the french horn really well and the judge said it won't make the smallest difference to me how well he plays the french horn there are two things and i'm not hearing any evidence about there are two things you might argue one of you one is the judge is wrong to rule out the french warned us of a potentially relevant fact and the other is that even if the judge has and then there is very no one standing here today can know exactly what counsel trial counsel what specific information trial counsel wanted to get that court relating to that nature that is that i wonder whether you're not reading to the bit out of context and that was judge connelly seem to be exasperated with with the defendant and what what he's saying is look you're not you're not acting responsibly at every turn here you're back in on another violation and i don't know what else i can do so i'm going to send you to twenty four he heard the point being made about minnesota and as i read it in substance look it's neither here nor there it's not my case so it won't when he says if your client reached out to them on this cooperation and i give her credit at least we're trying to take responsibility for that so we her not i mean you heard her position but then he focused on the conduct that was bringing her back in on the second violation but the the kind out in minnesota at least inexplicably tied to that the violation the violation was not correct your honor but she had relevant information and she was never ultimately convicted of anything in minnesota and i recognize that the court you know well the judge was that pulling her  responsible for an offense she hadn't been convicted of he then decided that he didn't want to hear anything about black aeration but when when we're talking about whether or not it's taking responsibility and acting responsibl i think details about her willingness to engage with authorities and things like that it's it's materially different if she is not reporting and out you know committing other crimes or doing other things or you know doing other irresponsible there is an argument to be made that because she was out you know being of assistance she went out there prosecution the limiting of the argument in a very even handed way and said i'm not going to consider the new arrest against you in this rather cation proceeding but i'm also not going to consider a s a consequence what you need i may not be doing in cooperation there is hardly any unfairness here i believe your honor that the arrests that happened prior to her in good morning to most here for the united states united states respectfully submitted for district court did not have uses discretion in this case after all i turn and jones had made three prior arguments before i got to the argument response thank you thank you very much the case taken under advice