case other participants in the sentencing decision disagreed with the district court's weighing of the relevant sentence of crafters and they disagreed by significant margins i want before i discuss that elaborate on i want to discuss the mistake that i made in my brief and i incorrectly cited the statute that applies to supervised release revocations i should have cited to the statute relevant to probation revocation violation to supervised release but here is why that mistake that i made does not impact the strength of my argument in this case the probation officer recommended a sentence of sixteen months that's thirty six months before low sentence imposed by the district court i can the probation officer who did the original pre sentence investigation report was different from the probation officer handled the probation violation reports and recommended the sixty month term but i have a hard time believing that that probation officer did not consult pre sentence investigation report or for making his recommendation so my point being here is that the probation officer would have been aware of the offense conduct he would have been aware that all of the sentencing factors applied he would have been aware of each of the probation violations and he would the prosecuting attorney also would have had access to the p s r he would have had intimate familiarity with the offense conduct we've been aware of the sentencing factors and the need for just punishment and yet she recommended a sentence if the six months below what the district court imposed the judge at the original sentencing would perhaps have been in the best position to evaluate the facts of the case because he heard expert the original objet edge not only would have been aware of the underlying criminal conduct he was also aware of all of the conduct that who are in the st probation violation report court to take a look and make sure that the court properly considered certain items were those items considered own remained in what's different in the  enough explanation or her ninety six months set i am consenting that this was a huge variance from the range of punishment in the revocation table so my argument is not that that she didn't adequately explain it in terms of allowing this court to do appropriate appellate review but that she didn't explain it in the substantive terms as to what justifies going from a opine that the defendant post a danger potentially pose a danger to the children based on the revocation conduct and opinions of the court about the  services branch administrator for the bureau of prisons she assessed mr michael as being low to moderate risk so the district court found that he's high risk and therefore has to be revoked and you ninety six months sentence and they may put him in a sex offender treatment program if they think ringback it qualifies and he's willing to transfer to another prison it's not offered at the prison where he's at can i help follow up question on that and i hope i'm not interrupting your answer to cheech it's not on the treatment aspect of that part of the testimony i understood that there was concern about treatment for both sex offender problems and his being on the spectrum did what and whether any tapio concerns here and that there were is any effort you've you've just got sort of this idea that he can't get treatment at the prison for several more years until he's closer to his release date was there any concern that those kinds of factors play into the district court's decision for treatment may be  raising a concern about court's opinion and the probation officers opinion that he wasn't getting what he needed in the community but he's not getting anything in the bureau of prisons so my point was if that's your basis for imposing a ninety six month that it undermines her entire argument in this case because the one thing that she still it seems to me declines to acknowledge is that since this is a revocation from a probation revocation not supervised release we're back to the original sentencing i think you know there's a lot to unpack your in ten minutes but if you look at page thirty six of my brief i think if i there's two things i want to emphasize here number one a probation violation does not trigger a sentence for the violation conduct that's different because that's what it does in supervised release revocation but a reset and so on the crime of conviction and that's cited reply brief does not appear in her original brief she does not acknowledge that at this is key the holdsworth case clearly holds that when you're in a situation involving a probation  as we are here and looking to determine reasonableness of the sentence you look at the guide the original guideline sentences and holdsworth involved a situation where his original guideline sentence i think was four thousand one hundred and forty one to fifty one months and after he violated that probation he got a fifty one month term of imprisonment and the argument there as it is here is like wait a minute he is his  if if if we talk about i think i cite a case that says well of course at a probation revocation you could also look at the revocation conduct and and so you really have two things to look at you look at the original crime because the statute clearly says you have to consider all the three thousand five hundred and fifty three a factors right before the argument i went through miss curtis briefs you see almost nothing nothing talking about the original conduct that certainly influenced the government's four thousand and forty month recommendation but subsequent development including st of all his his possession of this book you know youthful prey child predators who kill or interacting with children at the bowling alley and does reported to his probation officer he's got a device now where he's trying he's searching for internet internet porn putting in child pornography terms you know teen pre had expressed some additional some some continued interest in children and he sort of admitted struggling with some sex offender related issues and that was a concern for the court but then there was also the concern that he wasn't being honest about sort of some adult adult partner and some some withholding information and i it i wonder if that's ever if that was addressed at all the sort of tension between we think you touched on something that i wanted to address that it may not answer your question and i apologize if it doesn't but one of the things that influence the two experts that the defendant had would talk about honesty is that he is he was in treatment and he was saying that was no longer attracted to children and that i mean that's really all the experts had to go on was him saying i'm not i've been in treatment and i'm not i'm not sexually aroused anymore by seeing this sort of thing which causes them to think ok he  isn't a risk out there and now when you have these admissions that he uses when we know that he wasn't being truthful that i think is what makes him so so dangerous and that's why i think you cannot and i'm getting back to hold forth again you've got to understand that sense this is an original sentencing yes it now appears at least it did judge catch mark that he is much more dangerous than the experts thought he may well be that he's just somebody who is in the you know like his mother's basement you know looking at the stuff and he'll never harm a child but you don't know the red flags as the judge said or all there but the other thing that i think i don't want to get lost in the mix is you know basically the court gave him a break the st time this is a case where when you look at the number of images when you look at the type of conduct and i should i want to slap myself because i i i engage in this don't know why i read it that way i mean these three children were being raped and sodomized and he's watching this and he doesn't think that that's inappropriate and it was treated as a mitigating factor that he didn't you know he was socially underdeveloped that he didn't really understand how serious this was and so what i think differentiates the sentence that judge matsch mark imposed versus the original probationary sentence the judge whipple gave is that st of all judge well paul focused almost entirely on you know is he a danger relying on the experts who were relying on michael to tell the truth that he didn't and it overshadowed the seriousness of the offense i mean this isn't a seventeen or eighteen year old looking at fifteen year olds engaging in sex this is a grown person in his thirty's watching infants being raped and sodomized and he's sexually excited about that this is a good to when it comes to this court now understand that was the last time it was here there was a sixteen month recommendation or at least the last time before the district court government it least forty months and if i could address that the last fifty two seconds that was our original that was our original recommendation it's never changed and i think we stuck that i was not involved in that i had to handle the case on appeal but i think in these kind of situations you know there is a fear that may be unwarranted that we are being vindictive if we go and ask for a higher sentence we asked for that original forty sentence when we like everybody else thought that he wasn't going to be a danger and then when it turns out that's probably not the case we decided to stick to that and so we said at least forty knowing judge catch mark would likely go higher but  did you feel good public would have been appropriately protected as a sentence of forty months instead of twice that right but that of course is not our you know that was not our call i mean that's ultimately the judge's call and granted you have a probation officer who went higher than us and now you have a judge who's gone higher but i don't know of any cases your honor where the court has found a sentence unreasonable based on what the probation officer three times that michael lied about whether or not he was attracted to children or continued to be tracked it to children and i think one of the things that there we just need to just recognize that when people suffer from addictive and compulsive behaviors are when they are in remission the attraction actually does become greatly diminished to the point where people say i no longer have that attraction but if you don't work continuing treatment and you have a relapse take situation those urges will come back and it doesn't matter whether that urges drug addiction or alcoholism or progress or the addictions it just changes and so i think i think there's a world in which particularly this person who's on the spectrum could have been totally honest in saying i am not attracted now and find himself you know a year later being completely in the throes of his addiction again because it has a lot more to do with the work that the person is doing on the program and i think ultimately it doesn't matter in the in the decision because the judge takes the person as they exist at the time of sentencing you know but i just wanted to push back on that because i think that it's  table or the guideline range that originally calculated it never squarely address that issue it's dicta it's not and the the fifty one months the imposition of that sentence would have been justified on other factors in case problems in trying to make that point now also if the guidelines intended that on a probation revocation you immediately go back to the original guideline range then probation revocation would not have been lumped in chapter seven with supervised release reputation the only reason you apply the presumption of reasonableness and you don't have to be that in any case you apply it because the district court's opinion aligns with the sentencing commission  controlled substance offenses or offense that carry sentences of twenty years or more my client is nowhere near the maximum sixty one sorry i did that really fast