the district court referred to as keeping itself to compare defendants who appear before it to be sentenced under the career offender guideline i've never seen that chart the government didn't see that start the court did not present that chart asking to do here your honor would you answer my question and then you can tell me why you think it's not the same as what you arrest me you know i don't think i can write those down sides then the question is what difference does it make that the judge has written sentence of twenty years was imposed and then the judge asked did you have any reason for clarification and counsel stated yes can you please address those five individuals because if in fact the floor is relying on other people in determining you have to say well then we are entitled to find out from the judge what those people were who they were in other words to take the judge as deposition about what news remembering to write the question i'm sentence where any case the previous sentence is a target defendants were directly raised by both parties both parties attempted to compare and contrast mr farrington to other individuals who appeared appeared in front of the district you are trying to compare a client or a defendant to other people that have come in front of the judge and the judge himself brings up the idea that it is referencing other people who have documented outcomes  not did the judge think this in a certain documented outcomes dockets are available names are available we can usually just as with your honor's analogy an appellate court go to the decision on west law and read the reasoning behind those decisions if considered multiple arguments about the history of nonviolence being relevant and given a much lower sentences than the one mr farrington received that was the whole point of the exercise however the judge referenced no in fact my decisions were about in even keel with this one that's why i'm imposing this twenty year sentence i mean doing so the judge himself raised the issue of comparing mr farrington case to other documented outcomes in criminal cases before the court that's why it became relevant and could have been shocked and provide it your honor i do not know how can that be acceptable you are setting aside whether the district court had attempted to answer defense counsel's question and the district right did immediately go on to say look why is anything unclear  definitive and one of the things here that really concerns me is you have the reference to the chart plus a little chart within literally one page of in i have several of them in mind i'm really troubled by this and cetera et cetera i think a twenty year sentence you know is appropriate for this that you know the reason but it isn't that different in kind and in substance to say just been relying on their memory is that something that is in a sense discovered by the defendant as a teacher but pointed out do we want to be in a position where a defense counsel is in essence opposing a federal judge and also do we want to be in a position where we discourage the federal judge from keeping that kind of charge do we do we want to encourage them to rely on memory which i would argue is likely to be less accurate and i think that's an important consideration as well when we're looking at th in any case here the district court did not rely on inaccurate information and in violation of the defendant's due process rights and i don't believe the district court how can we evaluate that question without facts just accept that he was right about his assertions as to where this defendant in the greater scheme of all the defendants on the chart we don't even know how many defendants are on the chart he mentioned that there were five that he was comparable to we don't know the facts of their case and you know i think it would be equally hard to know that if the charge that as far as i believe judges frequently do  i'm thinking of the grand scheme of defendants i understand and so in this case and in this case in particular both the prosecutor and defense counsel had brought up other career finder guidelines he looked at thirty five fifty three factors he actually agreed with most of the defense counsel's mitigation arguments he just did not vary as much as the defense counsel had asked right the question here is procedural error whether it's  lying on in his sentencing decisions and specifically the sentence to try that set of facts under the thirty five to three actors factor of avoiding unwanted sentencing disparities so i mean it's structural sentencing procedure and sort of the judge's incorporating into his decision without disclosing them early on or even if for the sake of argument i would just conclude by saying that this is not the type of case where a judge expressed a general feeling about drugs in the community or a general feeling about him history category the chart the other defendant proceedings by the district court and when asked for clarification on was given this is not i'm not trying to discover the recesses of the judge's mind i merely want to know why my client was compared to a group of people that i was not able to access that is the procedural