with a juvenile male this case presents two issues for this court the first is a general more general issue that has brought her application and that is whether general deterrence is a general whether general deterrence is a proper basis for imposing sentence the this court's precedents are clear juvenile male which is a two thousand and three case says that we have militating is the only proper basis for imposing the discretion of the court is limited by the purpose of the threat of federal juvenile delinquency act and that purpose is to remove juveniles from the regular criminal justice system here in this that  happened that is correct that did happen thing in the end a custodial sentence which was not supported by the record was imposed and it was imposed for a general deterrence purpose which the court made clear two different histories now going through both the dispute on the legal and the street on the factual you can focus on the legal if you want but i want to stop in the factual too because i look very carefully at what judge collins said and he said with regard to the deterrence part to simply send you back home with your parents doesn't give you the right message either now it's true he goes on to talk about the rest of the community but he's not disregarding this particular individual and he's thinking i think with some justification look if we just let you go that's not a positive thing for your rehabilitation is it tells you that you can get away with it isn't that something that is focused on the defendant exactly the way it's supposed to be i do i do believe the judge collins did take into consideration the facts of this particular case but that was not the only thing that he did take into consideration he also took into consideration the needs of other juveniles and paul in imposing this particular sentence in this case and you know that's very clear because in that same breath that he said that he was concerned about this particular juvenile he said there was also a general deterrence goal now there was some back and forth on this particular issue the government argued that this was  imposition of sentence on that basis the court just determined that that was one of the reasons for imposing sentence now i think at best what this what the record shows is that it was a factor  with the record before the court at a minimum what needs to happen is it needs to go back to the district court so that the district court can say to what extent that did impact the sentence when i said couple things first it's quite obvious that you're quoting the transcript correctly that the judge did talk about not only the deterrent effect on the particular individual but also if he goes back home and there was no jail time or no incarceration rather h the situation of this particular individual he was you know basically the record of the drug was he was a good kid quite young going to church and so on and on the rehabilitation why is this one statement and to overturn everything else it because it is not just the one statement the standard is for the court to pull impose the least restrictive sentence in order to further the juvenile rehabilitation the court made it clear that he did find that the juvenile well it was clear from the record that the court did not doubt the juveniles acceptance of responsibility and the court did have consideration for that you've been out and that he saw the and one one way to help rehabilitate you is to separate you from that environment for long enough so you can get your act together and really be impressed with how important it is to go straight instead of being mr rise money cars and all that goes along with the drug business well i don't think the court really did determine that that was necessary or it couldn't at least on the shelf and not in the words i used it yourself he said that it was important that the juvenile learned that lesson and he said that that w his intent but there was not any information in the record to suggest that that was still necessary at the time of sentencing the juvenile had already spent four months in custody four months away from his family the goals that the court talked about had been simply send you back home doesn't give you the right message speaking very much of the defendant so in the judge's mind the four months wasn't enough it wasn't completely clear he didn't have one hundred percent assurance that here after the defendant was stay on the straight and narrow something like this and he tried to drive across the border with a whole lot of marijuana and cocaine he fell into james torrance well and that's the friends are going to be back in his home again and there's a reason to think that you know he stepped across the line we need to make sure he takes this very seriously and the judges assessment was that for time was necessary to make sure that the defendant would get the right message at least that's what he says and i have a hard time saying that he has sold he was supposed to get five hundred dollars and the amount was such that that was a pretty valuable lot to make it to the market and you wouldn't have guessed that from this kid before the same thing that causes you with some credibility to be able to say this is a good kid you don't expect to have a problem the future what about all of us to say this is a good kid we're not going to have this problem when it occurred so it seems to me the judge has some basis for saying we want to make sure the message gets in and his judgment as the sentencing judge is that more time was required but it does make specific reference to to the defendant so the argument amounts to saying is that improper because he also makes reference to something else i believe it is because the court set out playing matters he made a point of saying  was one of the purposes that he was imposing sentence i think that we are left with nothing to do but to believe the court that it did impose the sentence for the reasons stated and if i may just reserve to rehabilitate a purpose as its primary aim is judge rymer noted under united states versus juvenile that rehabilitation only needs to be the primary purpose or not the sole purpose there are other tertiary purposes that are permissible under both the federal juvenile delinquency act and us versus judah now the record here show that the juvenile committed his offense because he needed money to bail as brother out of jail and because of the influence of other friends that he had and the court was perfectly within its discretion to find that education and treatment would give the juvenile skills to six sixteen and endeavors other than drug trafficking you are seventy five and seventy nine the judge noted the facility in stafford will teach you some english it will teach you life skills it  responsibility and you will learn that this is not the way you get ahead in life it could be very beneficial to you if you learn some other skills we can't examine this entire sentence as the court noted with microscopic scrutiny we have to look at the overall sentence merely because the imposed was the least restrictive means to accomplish the rehabilitation once the judge decided that some rehabilitation was necessary because of the defendant's immigration status he had very limited options he decided going back to mexico wasn't in his best interest the b prisons doesn't have any facilities in mexico they just have one secure detention facility in arizona and that was the only facility that he could really send him to it was a three hour drive from his family but it was the best option he had under the law he certainly didn't abuse its discretion by committing him there for less than twelve months recommended by probation and also noted that during the four months we've been incarcerated closer to the border his family had never visited and he speculated that was because they couldn't get across the border but there's a little bit in the record the probation said that i believe defense counsel also noted that the defense and spam we had been visiting him that they had some sort of order or something like that it is unfortunate but i and fortunately it seems like that's just the problems we face when we have juveniles from mexico in the united states and that he has no behavioral problems other than of course the delinquent conduct so there was a finding by both probation and the court that there was a need for a rebuilt rehabilitation and what that need was if the court doesn't have any further question i just like to focus on the distinction between rehabilitative needs and educational needs which all juveniles may need in any juvenile case you're going to have juveniles that are not they have not reached the ideal level of educational or  even preferred level of education and so what we had here was english courses for a young man who was going to be returned to mexico these aren't the sort of rehabilitative needs that other juvenile cases talk about these are not serious psychological problems serious behavioral problems and to put a child in custody that far away from his family it doesn't seem to be justified by that reason