for the th circuit case that came ringback down after she issued this opinion and hence with says yes you transport yourself back in time and you don't look at anything that happened after that sentencing here but  not the majority view and in fact i would argue that it conflicts with your own opinion in united states versus williams which says that in order to  for other reasons we can't be sure because she didn't mention anything that we put in the brig and the squire and williams and then other quirks recognize that it's not enough just to add a throwaway  that you know even if i would have done the same thing you have to be able to this court has to be able to review that decision independently and see if their support for it and see if the defendant's arguments were considered she would then mention any of the things that we his base of fans level based on that calculation in his career offender status was thirty seven going for a guy license of two hundred and sixty two months just smith can prove very from that sentence seventy four months to one hundred and eighty eight months now mr haines comes up for review if mr haines pushed off under the st step backed he would have been charged with just five grams of discretion to decide whether i will reduce the sentence and i don't have to reduce the judge smith can't say she said this in the last set paragraph factors to mean you could say she was still going to do it whether you say she would or should we not i think what she's really saying is at the time she was writing this opinion that she thought that one hundred and eighty eight months was a fair of the sense of the opinion her last sentence would serve as greater than necessary to satisfy all of the three thousand five hundred and fifty three a factors that i would agree with you but i don't think that's what the judge will see now does she use the terms i i judge i don't think they can give you a gradients or on that as far as what's the position of the department of justice related to every case and i just can't i can only tell you that in this case i believe d the judge the filler duty under section or b and c to decide whether she had to modify her in her sentence and if she did whether she discretion whether she would use her discretion to do that and i think he or she made the decision that she even if she had to modify her pinion ers i'm sorry keep saying pin even if she had to modify percents two hundred and eighty eight to thirty five she still would not have gone below two hundred and eighty in order to rehabilitation we have a lot of cases in regular sentencing hearings that say it's not here for the judge to refrain from mentioning everything the defendant argues but sometimes it might depend i suppose on how significant the evidence was and whether it's reasonable to think the judge implicitly forbid was unpersuasive or whether it's a major issue that was on the grass school what was the evidence to believe is a just sentence and she didn't mention anything about that she also didn't mention our other argument which is that the government itself advocated can write it down in the end what they said was the party's conservative dependent fender but we did not anticipate that the government's statement was that the filing of i just don't think that it's good enough evidence that she did take the right steps in denying this notion we would ask that the word remain and if for another shot in the big proper standards of the st act why do you fairness that the sentences brought about that's why i think it's it's improper i would direct you to the chambers opinion which i think is also very helpful in that regard which court that's doing it this way during the pandemic so i excuse