guideline range which be two hundred seventy six months but then deviated from that required path and started to argue for a sentence that quote was as long as possible that's a problem here when the counts of conviction include a nine twenty four seat conviction which has a sentence statutory authorize up to life imprisonment so as long as possible no longer means two hundred seventy six months or anything within the guidelines range it means up to life and that is a breach  proceeds to augment its request presentation of evidence in an effort to obtain the requested sentence and this video evidence this is the victim's statement these are the horrific facts that are recounted by the government and the government says that it did all of th an effort to prevent the district court judge from giving a sentence different than two hundred seventy six months but i find that there are problems with making that assertion because we had a procedural mechanism to lock the judge and give the guy a rule say that the prosecution is at liberty to volunteer little's of information in an effort to obtain a life sentence the judge can look at information it does not obligate the government to present that's what happened so that recommend x years or next months and then say nothing but this agreement doesn't justify even two hundred seventy six months prosecutor asked to show that bad acts by a bad actor right  that's done so i have some difficulty seeing where there is a plain violation so the judge ultimately said that the judicially determined guideline range was two hundred seventy six months on the low but unfortunately that's a from the range that authorizes a sentence below the range but does not change the rank to see that all you have to do is read the guidelines and for that matter the circuits cases which say it doesn't change the rate i saw the range was five hundred and twelve to five hundred thirty five months not as understood by the party which would be central to the margins were making a mistake but the range was what he was and the fleet really deals with the ra plainly incorrect and if i mean we're arguing point in error yeah right there were a lot of things that weren't pointed out to the judge one of them was the judge was making a mistake about what the range was ok did the guideline range say it was up to the did not and so therefore i'm asking for a life sentence which the guidelines have life sentences we cannot rescue the government from its air when enticed the district court not to rely on the reins of that state and then  a sentence that would still be above the five hundred twelve to five hundred thirty five months if that is the correct range and again it was argued so those are all significant problems i think is the case landing here before this court present was something that the judge relied on very significantly however there's no recollection by the judge of poker pressley or case of the talk about aging out of violent criminal offenses of the changes in brain chemistry that supreme courts been recently reduced by the five k one point one most what are you relying on to believe that the guideline range was affected by the five k one point one says the judge is authorized to impose a sentence below the range you don't  argument you know you were making in some of the language some of the government used at sentencing i mean it's hard to it's hard to see you didn't tether it to and for all these reasons we think twenty three years is sufficient to achieve all of the objectives of sentencing in the past imposed sentences that were last in that recommended by the government or even the defendant we're even more and that are significantly lower than the guideline range so the concern that i have since been there there's a bit of kind of gaming going on here well the district judge on this case has made it clear that she will impose whatever sentence she believes is appropriate regardless of what the recommendation of the party is and it here was because of the fact that because of what i just pointed to the concern that if you didn't do that sentencing judge may go significantly below below or significantly below twenty three years well it would be too cold your honor it was one that that we would make an argument sufficient to support the recommendation of twenty three years imprisonment on that doesn't take much on these facts it may nat for for some judges but reasonable people can disagree additionally be challenged so if the jeff district judge decided to impose this as let's say a fifty year sentence or thirty five year sentence or life sentence the government and the parties have one opportunity to make that record that would support whatever sentence the district judge ultimately decided to impose and so it was but i think what you're saying is that you think you felt the was imperative to emphasize you know the seriousness of the offense it just seems completely obvious to me i mean anyone even remotely familiar with the facts would instantly agree with the gravity of the offense conduct i think that that's true but he was also only fifteen at the time that he committed the crimes and he was the gunman and only one of the armed robberies and the government had entered into a similar plea agreement with the other two co defendants who were gunman in both of the armed robberies and one of whom had shot in the first robbery so those woods was the first of the three defendants to be sentenced in this case so at the time of the sentencing the different the government did not have any inclination as to what the district judge how the district judge viewed the nature and circumstances of the offense they're all or that of each defendant's relative culpability additionally there had been no trial of this case there had been no evidentiary hearings on this case so the district judge did not know any of the facts and circumstances surrounding the offenses other than what was written in the in the p s r and i think we can agree that the what is written in the p s r can read very differently than the presentation of the evidence and i would dispute defendant's defense counsel's argument that it was aggravating evidence that the government presented it was all evidence that was directly related to the nature and circumstances of the offense and i think that it is it is important for each party to the district judge have the victim impact letter she did not have the full  with regard would like to just address so i do not believe that there was a plane error and i don't think that it's obvious and is certainly cannot demonstrate that if there even if there was a breach of the plea agreement that the sentence would have been any different because the record demonstrates that the defense district judge understood that the government's recommendation was in fact twenty three years and there's nothing to suggest that she interpreted the government arguments or presentation of evidence as an advocacy for sent any sentence higher than that what's the reason for just giving the judge a summary of the victim impact statements i honestly cannot answer that question your honor there each probation officer can still do it somewhat differently but they they put the mitigating it certainly doesn't come out that way not at risk of going into my cool hand luke made the government can stop being so good to us on this stuff because a lot of bad information that is not then balanced by anything good