through ok go ahead sensing guideline range determined by the court court consistent with the sentencing guidelines stipulations set forth above my argument to the stipulations set forth the sentencing guideline range the sentence exceeded the guideline range of what is set up the range i'm sorry where does the ten up to rank in the stipulations set forth above those depletion set forth the guideline factors which determine the sens the sens is fifty one at the low end and i would say fifty seven at the high end the plea agreement sets forth by that's worth rather three contradictory agreements the first is on the face of it the parties agree to certain factors that they're willing to go ahead on the belief from assumptions but they still go ahead i contend that in fact there was an agreement that the that and the use of the word assuming is a poor choice of words guess but it isn't the best he can do because he has access to all of the defendant's criminal history either he misstated the criminal history to his client did not understand the criminal history to his client and i don't believe what i'm going to say and for a minute well you kind of tax it is reached nobody knows for certain what the history is including the defendant and so it's very very common to reason to leave that factor open without agreement in the end the best you can do is to force your b anyway if you want if you were someone i want to bring the number in another case you can do it but you can't do it i can try i understand your i think you you know you don't have much time left jurisdiction was it's not fatal almost looks like it's fatal thank you please the court i'm kamil skipper as the u s attorney appearing on behalf of the united states good morning your honour's the briefing i believe in this case is rather complete if the court has any questions for the government concerning the appeal waiver little bit of a confusion i think well the waiver in this case on page thirty four of the excerpts of record clearly states not not of a range or not just so intense of which the defendant could not be the criminal history category him as the course already observed is couched in belief languages it's the belief of the parties because criminal history calculations are notoriously difficult and the probation officer will frequently come back with a criminal history cad category that is different from the ones that the parties thought would apply to the case but in addition to that the court at the about nine eleven and then the court later on in this is page fifty two of the excerpts of record and asked if the defendant understood that the government had agreed to make certain recommendations regarding the sentence and that the court was not required to follow those recommendations and if the court didn't the defendant would not be able to withdraw his guilty plea but would still be bound by the terms of the plea and the court a sentence not be greater than the top of the guideline range in the court so it understood this was clarity in both the plea agreement and in the record at the taking of the defendant's pl thirty years now certainly the court has sentenced him to thirty years and he would have had the right to appeal but there's very little ambiguity in this plea agreement the only ambiguity that exists in this plea agreement with regard to his right to appeal and continually in the plea agreement and does anyone have any further questions i think i don't think that you need any more arguments and much there's something burning that you need to say tell you honest waiver of appeal is conditioned and what it was conditioned upon it seems to me and it's stated by her in court and in the plea agreement is that it's the laws that plea agreement are construed you know like much like a contract then you have to you have to make that construction on an object a reasonable basis it's not really subjectively what he understood as it is not the law killers killer and i don't have those notes but keller i cited my great speaks to that issue it is what the parties reasonably believed now he is a party to this now obviously it's a contract dispute at this point the government believes the contract said something else but a party to the contract reasonably believe that the sentence would be within the criminal history guidelines criminal history five range if you reasonably believe that keller says we construe the contract consistent with that be right so on the basis of the record before then our job is to creant in his own right but nonetheless with a twelve grade education it seems to me clear through the other through this record that he believed it to be