crow goes men proceed yes unit mr crocus two thousand and eleven virginia conviction for possession with intent to sell marijuana was used as a career offender predicate in the instant crime under virginia law at the time he could have been convicted with just a half an ounce but as of july two thousand and twenty that's not a crime not to be more than an ounce and we don't know the quantity he possessed in virginia in two thousand and eleven and mr crow goes now serving time as a career offender when that underlying conduct may no longer be a crime without the career offender he might get six to eight years and he got nearly double that no person should be sentenced for a controlled substance offense when the substance is no longer controlled and this is plain error because of virginia statute clearly changed it greatly affects m sentence the reputation of the laws harmed when people serve time for conduct that's no longer illegal virginia has changed and as to the other problems i think it diminishes respect for law it when you see somebody serving time essentially for something that really is no longer a crime i don't mean to be you know take heed to the opinion but let's say he was he was convicted of it you know harboring a fugitive slave or something like that before the civil war than after the civil mr croker should also not be treated as a career offender because his nine hundred and ninety five north carolina conviction for voluntary manslaughter was twenty five years ago and that was when he was just four months pest essentially an adolescent transgression this may be harmless error depending upon the outcome of the career offender issues but mr croker was also allocated two extra points because he was on probation when he brought the bank in if the crime in his down the hampshire however he was not under a criminal justice sentence at the time his prior sentence was ten years nine suspended plus probation and enhancement for being on a career suspended sentence alone is not sufficient and that's plain error because the th circuit case sentencing and like you said i recognizes how much there if it depended on the outcome of the  finally a sentence must be sufficient but not greater than necessary and mr crocus sentence is much greater than necessary to such sentencing judge judge declare go said that the standard sentence for bank robbery in new hampshire district quote runs between three or four years to six or seven years unquote mr crow got twelve's it is not reasonable to serve time as i said for a controlled substance offense but the substance is no longer controlled also the robbery was it lasted less than one minute there was nothing displayed that could be mistaken for a bomb no violence no harm and finally it was four days before christmas netted mr crow just two thousand seven hundred dollars and he went very next day to pick up some new york and give a portion of that money to his children overall twelve years is too long a sentence in this court should remain  says there's as then there's a circus split here that this court doesn't need to wade into because it can't be a clear areas clearly a controlled substance under federal law i argue with the control of those under virginia law i heard an argument today that i didn't hear in the green about a change in the quantity that happened subsequently so i'm not familiar with that because it wasn't wasn't in the brief but i did cite a lot in your law that continues to describe marijuana as a controlled substance even after the and seventy nine change in the law which was of the defendant is free in this court so i think no matter whether the court were to side with the view that you look at the federal law you look at the law very briefly question here this is a criminal whether the parent was under a criminal justice sentence it has nothing to do with whether he's incarcerated the commentary it's dealt says that you can be under criminal justice sentence even can be incarcerated and so the th circuit says that that is sufficient to bring it within a criminal justice sentence the issue of incarceration has nothing to do with this issue that's a separate part of the of the career center of sorry of the criminal history the guideline but not these two points and in any event as was conceded this is if the court agrees with the career offender this is as to the reasonableness of the sentence this is a substantial reduction from the guideline range the district court thoughtfully considered a criminal history deemed a serious deemed mitigating that the defendant had a long period without committing a crime and now has committed a robbery where he threatened go to block to bomb a bang and so taking all that into account and to defend in other mitigating factors the court determined that a seventy some odd man penalty below the guideline was appropriate the court explained it