essential foundation of that we dream was a promise by the united states government to recommend that no find be and hold counsel i'm missing a couple of things about your argument missing in the sense of i don't understand discretion it's mandatory so it was impossible to mean anything i promise and i recommended do something and there's just no way that that promise means that the government there would have promised that it recommend no absolutely not and did not make recommendation there and it is it true that there can be no fine if the per well let me back up a step as i understand it there is not a statutory mandatory minimum fine you're concerned about your concern is that the guilty he gave up all this constitutional rights to property is money in return for one thing a promise and i'll quote incidentally was there an objection to the fine at the time of sentencing the object and this goes to a case that you wrote about in the w where there was no warning there was a mandatory sentence the district court even stead stated in its own decision i've been thinking about this very carefully but not until the sentences imposed does anyone find  submit that there is a mandatory fine you must of missed my question i'm sorry what i want to know was did the defense of jew act either to the governments there you are with respect to a recommendation of no fine at their the government you recommend that you should not impose a fine and you're right there wasn't anything like that but i think you have to look at your decision and why it's in both the  that same issue was raised in which the government failed to make the recommendation and then after the judgment was entered there was that there was a conversation between the court and the prosecutor at paragraph five of the senate acknowledges that the agreement will be fulfilled provided the government makes the recommendations contained in paragraph eleven of this fleeting ok then i look at paragraph a letter grab eleven based on the four mature settlement agreed to here in the united states agrees to make a recommendation that no fine be input that's the only bargain he got in this case it wasn't filled and it was impossible to fill i think i have whatever time i  thank you and good morning my name is burning fuel when i was the prosecutor in this case i think the point that i want to start from here is you will see no articulation from me that you're talking about judge judge we have a deal here i recommend no fine and the reason is simply this the court came out and said i see i understand what the government's what on earth are you doing  you to prove bargains very legal your honor i don't think it was illegal i do think that the judge had discretion and i think that that one statement that is being made that judge the level said i think it's mandatory if you look beyond th defendant to pay a fine and the circumstances surrounding the situation there the judge went right through his discretionary requirements under the guidelines he looked at the whether he should impose a fine the impact on the family the cost of incarceration he went right down the guidelines he made that one misstatement about i think it's mandatory it's mandatory that he make the considerations but consider what happened here judge long before the pre sentence report came out long before anybody and i suspect defense counsel included at the trial level long before anyone knew that this man was worth seven million dollars there was a plea agreement negotiated where in the government said i'll make a recommendation of no find based on the fact that there had been forfeiture here that's not illegal if he had no ability how much to before he forfeited three parcels of land if you look at the entire record you'll see appraisals of about forty four thousand dollars i believe that the  forfeiture amount of the sale was roughly one hundred ten i don't have the precise figure but he forfeited the three parcels record for that land worth somewhere between forty four and a hundred ten thousand say and i think closer to one hundred ten is what we actually correct my thinking on that is you folks made a deal and the united states made it in ignorance of just how rich the defendant was no question tough if you bought my concerns and the insurance company didn't know you had an aneurysm about to burst and you died week later tough for them right they put it right your ignorance doesn't entitle you to your contract that's correct now look at the sentencing france and i don't see where the government attorney stood up and said your honor it is my duty to advise you pursuant to paragraph eleven of the  states agrees as agreed in that agreement and make a recommendation that no crime be imposed and we now do make that recommendation to you and you won't find it or you didn't do it now i also don't find that the defendant ever told the judge judge we had a deal that they make a recommendation and they didn't make it and i don't you want if i would have made any difference because the judge isn't talking about four thousand guideline minimum he's talking four hundred thousand correct and two things your honor i want to clearly understand understand why he didn't make the recommendation let me explain i didn't make the recommendation because the court in my view clearly said i understand the government's record recommendation always advised in the script that the sentence would be constrained by the guidelines and a calculation would be made pursuant to the pre sentence report and any other submissions and determinations for the court was he told something like that yes then watts do you agree that the judge was required in mandatory language to tell the firm that there was a mandatory minimum penalty including fine yes now you said not applicable here so therefore the judge had a duty under the guidelines since the fifty's were not applicable to impose his client is not true this is true and  justify the  expensive ask for recovery which i mean i think what he was talking about there is i have no idea how much you've made selling drugs so therefore i can't use that guideline provision but he did he went right down through three provisions the impact on the family the car's cost of incarceration and the ability to pay and our view is that and quite frankly going back to the first i think he had discretion i don't think that there was a minimum mandatory fine required here if he could have made the finding that there was too much of an impact on the family or looking at those other considerations he could wait if you could if you could conclude judge you're using the word mandatory with exceptions i think what that means is that a fine is conditional not mandatory it's conditional upon certain conditions being met and i think speaking of the mandatory fine here guidelines and said i keep part downward and do not find the defendant in light of the government's recommendation the guidelines for say the judge shall find unless the defendant either is that the parts were because of a government recommendation of prohibited ground for departure that i know so if you had done what you promised to do of course but the point is the judge understood what the government's recommendation was here the reason i stood near this he says i understand what the government's role i understand what the government's promise and i'm not going to do it so that as i see the government has agreed to recommend i took that as an acknowledgment that he understood considered and rejected our recommendation there was no intent on my part to violate that plea agreement i thought it was all on the record based on what his comments were plain and simple thank you you thank