it's clear that procedural error occurs if the court does not adequately explain the basis for the sentencing decision he said even let's go and we upheld that imposed at in addition to an undistorted term of imprisonment and but here you would need to say less because the guidelines are quite clear that in view ordinary course the case in cochrane which holds precisely what i'm arguing here and that is a supervised release case and which there stood i don't think a poll of o answers the question is raised on this record and especially in this case your honor where the district court acknowledged explicitly that there is a serious risk and it did a remarkable thing under the circumstances because of that it gave the sentence which was of a bottom of the sentence it could have given under the guidelines of a substantive offense a law which is very much in keeping with what the supreme court has recently allowed people to do in situations eminently sensible and war of unfair to your client but really don't understand what you're here they demanded this was not a mandatory imply understand it was a sin of but it was suggested and what the court did said i don't like what i think is double counting even both the law says it's not able to go in so i'm going to go bottom up a lot about she when she went down you know about it she very downright twenty one but the reason she went down was because the the offense guidelines tripled the base offense level from eight to twenty four while at the same time on the basis of criminal history well the same she said ok i'm not really troubled by ending tripling the offense level adding the sixteen level she says nancy ok but i don't like increasing the criminal history so we're going to go back to the original criminal history category and use that and then she gives them the bottom of the guidelines range from next calculation that's correct and then she says look the the guidelines say that when there is a violation of supervised release in addition the substantive offense  make the sentences consecutive and she gave the bottom of the guidelines range for that sentence and made it consecutive right but it wasn't a but it was a middle middle guideline trying to make that consecutive ok she she taketh away and then then she give it that back problem so if she hand it your procedural argument that she should have said i'm giving fifteen months and here are the reasons i'm giving fifteen months and then for the exact same conduct say i'm giving twenty four months for the the being imposed isn't that exactly why district judges generally impose a condition of supervised release that is you shall violate no state federal or local law what is except for the unusual case for one who was deported immediately after sentencing it serves absolutely no purpose there was no purpose to the supervisor please term well no it serves this purpose it serves this very purpose and that's where we come in the double counting or double punishment which she recognizes and then apparently ignored thank you i'll reserve the rest of my time thank you so here from the government give warning when it please the court like pressure from the u s attorney's office at the outset i want to apologize to the court last week because i was preparing for today's argument i realized that the p d f version of the brief that we had filed back in march had pages that were out of order out of sync the paper copy was correct but i was embarrassed we filed a corrected p d f version  you this court has made clear when it's reviewing sentencing decisions that it is not in the business of micromanaging district court sentencing decisions and as your honour's questions have pointed out today judge rice was very careful in how she explained the total seventy four month sentence that mr sosa received she thoroughly covered the thirty five fifty three factors and then she said with that in mind she would impose a var e downward on the underlying offense of fifty to fifty months for the reasons of concern with doubleclick with the criminal history category impact on the previous conviction and then she would consistent with the guidelines explained that there would be an additional twenty four months that would be imposed given the quite agreed just violation of supervised release in this case for a total sentence of seventy four months and i would suggest that under any standard that sentence is reasonable this is a man who had been successfully prosecuted on five separate occasions for felonies three of those felonies involved immigration was four of them involved drug laws one involved firearms trafficking and he's been deported twice before this person will be deported once he completes the sentence is that correct i presume that's correct that is within the purview of the department of homeland security and but it's my experience that that is that that would be that is everybody's expectation seems like a lot of spinning wheels the reason i would disagree with that characterization is that he had been deported twice before following relatively following prison sentences that were much shorter than the seventy four months here and on those occasions he really offended by reappearing and on  on one occasions we defended by committee in defense of conspiring to distribute in excess of ten kilograms of heroin so this is a person who has been afforded relatively lenient sentences followed by removal from the united states and now he represents he and again using fraudulent passport fraudulent they obtained a passport and the question is i do know how much is enough and i think when somebody has been prosecuted successfully on for five on five different occasions for felonies three of those in federal court that a seventy four month sentence in the context of this case is well within the bounds of reason i would only draw your attention to the pereira decision in which this court upheld this sixty two month sentence for somebody convicted of the same offense with a smaller with a less severe criminal history criminal history category two in that case the district judge granted an  upward and above guideline sentence and this court said that it was essentially i'm troubled by the severity of that sentence this is simply a twelve month longer sentence for a person his criminal history is much much more severe criminal history category five as he was appearing before judge rice on the conviction and criminal history category six when he was sentenced by judge swain in the southern district here so i would suggest that under and the first of all i would ask that you not accept the invitation to micromanage the sentencing decision but even if the court were inclined to dig into it i think just under just whatever under whatever scrutiny you were to subject it to it should survive reasonableness review thank you thank you mr stephanie reserved to me thank you thank you your honor if i could follow up on lots of spinning wheels i think it's relevant two ways number one my client was sitting on a bus at the border that that's correct i still think though that the nature of the conduct wasn't adequately taken into consideration which leads it to my argument of the lack of substantive reason most of this for the sentence he was deported immediately after the last time he was going to he's going to be deported immediately after he serves his six years in the court commented about the risk to public safety at the same time that the court found that there was no evidence to was entering the united states for an illegal to commit any illegal acts in the court also over relied on his criminal history when the court had already determined think you're confusing what is is or is not reasonable under his sentences that is we may well feel that i'm awful lot of the laws that make certain things criminal and have certain penalties attached to them are absurd but that isn't for us to have anything to say the question is when we have laws even if they are absurd is the district court applying them reasonably or not and that is hard to see is only reasonable given what vs laws are and i would suggest for the court to make a conclusion that this he did not enter to commit an act at the same time to find