sentences all i can say is that all of the cases that deal with the waiver or even a forfeiture are involved in this where the issue was never raised where it wasn't discussed where it wasn't on the record it wasn't brought up by any of the parties please how myspace is different from these other cases because frankly it was a very surprising sentence given what the parties had previously experienced in her district judge with this type of charge and so the district judge then went on to attempt to explain judge because the district judge said in his ruling i'm considering the thirty five fifty three factors including the disparities of sentencing and then that's when counsel said wait a minute what about these other people if it may not be your duty to in every sentenc other people who are there other times that's true and that's why in that we attempted to elicit in the brief more information about these particular people the judge specifically relied on their sentences and said i am sentencing him a little bit more than mr sh thirty five fifty three factors of the bad conduct versus the mitigation story that was presented by mr lawson anything about future danger he did not particularly i believe what he said on the record was that he didn't know he thought he would not commit any future crimes except potentially a sentenced on accurate information and accurate information i am struggling with that at least when i think about that is the right to be sentenced on accurate information i think of it as the accurate information underlyin potentially inaccurate let's just concede for now it's inaccurate but it really has nothing to do with the circumstances of the folks offense but it does because the judge if he didn't have to you're right there's no obligation for a district court to consider other individuals that came before in sentencing that being said the district court can and did in this case and so by inserting it into the proceedings and making it clear that that was this that was a pretty big basis for imposing this sentence was the comparisons with other individuals similar because i really didn't think they were and then the district court did explain but got it wrong i mean that if i had just kept silent and not inquired then i think the government would have a point that this was a labor issue but that's not what happened and that the district court himself inserted th improbable you know the problem is is the judges you know what we encourage judges to ask the kind of questions that judge groups ask you know is there anything else and very often you know we have the when no one in their right mind would do that indeed the supreme court has said even a few months are significant for people so that's one problem and there's actually another and there were not three other victims there weren't any other victims we would consider that a procedural flaw in the approach to sentencing because sentencing of course is not exclusively about the carbines right supreme court can't possibly be more clear about that but you know i don't believe that the district court clearly erred in this case or erred at all i think that the district court was likely thinking that mr davis this case which actually fact that there are material comparisons that the judge is making between this defendant and other people who have committed crimes in this group of crimes and defense counsel doesn't know about it until the end and then there's just no time to follow up on it there's no time to say well here are some other cases here no no thirty years and the same is you know you're not getting any anywhere close to thirty years defendants in the court room and when that additional information plus presented the defense counsel if they had a question about the other about mr davis or mr shannon or anything the government that then had the opportunity is the court i just looked up to make sure i was making a stop to the court says mrs pierson do you want any further explanation my reasons for imposing the sentence mr pearson no your honor the court mrs p mr most or and then he goes on to what he remembers kind of recalls that it's brian david thinks he gave him a very very high sentence also say i understand your explanation judge but i'm taking exception to it but i don't think this was an exception and this court recently and burros found that where the district court again inquiries as to why there are further elaborate elaboration is needed or principal arguments and mitigation have been addressed that the sentence that the district court is inviting another potential up to ten another potential objection from the parties  that depends a lot on how it comes off and you know it at some point you're if you're an explanation you're trying to get a record you know what motivated us your i don't know maybe you got to record som disparity formula the information brought up regarding mr shannon was not brought up until after a sentence had been imposed and the district court did not give any indication it relied on the sentence and maintaining the sentence imposed and additionally  testified so i was unaware of a lot of the details of that however i pulled what was in the public record which was in the government's sentencing memorandum to put into the brief to clarify last playing in terms of how much is the defense attorney supposed to argue with a sitting district all right thank you very much thank you counsel take the case under