may please the court my name is jack see how much i'm here on behalf of the defendant depends on russell spratly we're here to argue about the substantive reason illness of his sentence and that the sixty two and the conditions under which he was raised as a child and how that impacted on him probably as you know from the record had an unbelievably horrific childhood he was had a mother who entertained untold numerous men who regularly beast her and through that he learned that this was considered except a lot behavior say that this is substantively unreasonable when the court looked at all of the things and it is within the range of guidelines you know i might very well had i been a district judge looked at this and decided differently but under our cases how can we them but this court is not supposed to just rubber stamp the sentences that were imposed by this report in fact we need to the core is required to look we know that the way to turn that we would have to conclude for substantive a reasonable list that this was outside the range of choices that could be dri simple that a five year sentence five years and two months was just outside the range of what would be reasonable i so how do we say five years for a felon in possession is is outside the range of choices available to i think we need to look at how the weight is given to each of these factors and whether it was properly weighted to each of the factors it would have to be that the weight could not be given could not be given because we don't weigh ourselves i understand that you know if you had a trivial aggravating factor judge gave thirty years wait you might happen issue but here i'm not sure what you're saying was give it too little weight or too much weight and if we look at the weight that was given for example to his childhood and the conditions under which he was raised  acknowledged that yes his parents treated him horribly but the court's response was that he was an adult now without considering how and his prior punishments had not to turd him his abuse his own abusive childhood that's what he learned to behave which is very sad but if that's how he learned to behave and he continues to behave that way it was a district where outrageously wrong to say given his history there is a need for protection of the public here we haven't we actually see what was happening once he was under which we had a government entity that was looking to out for public's interest in as well as looking out for his interests through trial services in this case did an unbelievable job of watching over him ensuring that he was getting the medical treatment he needed the psychological treatment he needed the drug abuse treatment he needed on they got him working towards his ged which was just interested only because he was taken into custody after he pled and for the first time in his life he was actually gainfully employed in succeeding in his employment so we're seeing here that all the all the interest of the public was being taken care of and that the court ever had other options that if he fell off the court he could then impose a prison sentence are you suggesting that it would have been unreasonable to sentence him to any cars or to return we think that it was in this case incarceration was not necessary not necessary is it different question from whether any incarcerate to return would have been substantively unreasonable i just want to make sure and i think i think given the circumstances in mr spratleys case yes it would have been reasonable and so he demonstrated that he could not abide by the may place the court monica richardson to have it and states america here we do have a judge to give an individual a sentencing that's as required the decision carefully took into account all of the thirty five fifty three factors and that formed by the mitigating factors of his family history the judge acknowledge those but the judge didn't necessarily give him a break for those to the length or the below guidelines numbers that  the defendant was seeking what the judge did was calculated properly the guidelines sentencing range of fifty seven to seventy one months and within that range didn't given the high and and given the low end sort of the lower end but when you started it when he started to piece offense level of twenty that was right from the get go regardless of his criminal history category that was going to result in a higher sentance it's almost you know more a little bit over halfway down that column on the left hand fence of categories but with regard as been noted in the context of he is an adult now was that he's thirty five years old that he'd had passed since the age of twenty the past fifteen years he hadn't figured it out or hadn't been able to get the attention or the treatment or the care that he needed to help him through overcoming his upbringing and that that in context of now he is an adult this is where the judge was  that sentencing had he been seventeen years old when he was brought to this quarter brought to the district court there might have been some greater leniency shown to the to the defendant with regard to that sort of an argument but at this point the judge point was you've had some time and you've had interaction with the court system and the sentence guideline sentence is reasonable not shockingly high and not otherwise unsupportable as a matter of law unless there's any questions thank you thank you your honor i think it's important to consider the fact of how the system had failed mr spratly throughout his life that he was promoted through schools while he may have had time with the legal system legal system was not watching out for him or the safety of the public so his behavior was continuing it was behavior that he was taught until pretrial services was involved in his case was he on pretrial release in this case the actual time escapes me at the moment your honor it was when you're arguing that it's so manifest that he was doing so well on freed from release it was absolutely unreasonable for the judge not to continue him in a probationary status receive me would make a difference whether he was managing to do well under supervision for six months or for four years it wasn't four years but i do know it was more than six months anyway i think it's significant enough and that considering these factors that this is the type of sentence that should have been in the standard evos factors it might not have been  whole thing and then make judgments and then i can sit here and say i would have done differently but what can we possibly be in that and that isn't being a rubber stamp made