every it didn't result in a guideline calculation of twelve to sixteen months which is they saw fence level twelve the baseline of bribery guidelines there were multiple adjustments that were imposed first by agreement and then by the judge it was a four level increase because the public official held the sensitive position it was another two levels for multiple payments there was another set eight levels  years depending on the guideline decisions either there can be exceptional cases where all of those factors do not adequately address the severity of the crime that seem to be the view that the took took usually effect that it would be inherent absolutely as a matter of law if it's unusual it would be outside the discovery so so isn't it unusual for the bribery to involve the contemplated promotion of the judge of the bribery scheme wouldn't that make it to the unusual case where it wasn't just the facts that particular case but it was to elevate that corrupt judge to the next level of the  all he says so that would create potentially an unusual circumstance where the threat to the tissue would be higher in the case of fixing a single case it would certainly be unusual if this judg in the fact that the man and no one is contesting that this is a serious offense but the guidelines account for judicial bribery with multiple levels of increases that take a one year sentence and make it five years he corruption she said during her sentencing findings that she felt that if there was someone other than acevedo that didn't have his economic status that didn't have his political influence that he would not have been a well she predicated the upward variance not only on the factors of the effect on the public image not only on the facts of the case with the attempt to promote if that's was proven but on an assumption that was not based on facts not even based on the proffer of the prosecutor in fact three judges from different districts and this is a fourth appendix to a nine were brought in they were he was acquitted  the weapons he was dismissed on the threats and he was acquitted it's not quite of the threats and enough probable cause finding on the weapon that the judge made the conclusion that that and in  as did the court specifically cite a letter from the restaurant owner who was the victim of the assault who described what had happened to him and what happened to him complaint resulted in a finding of no probable cause again by an independent judicial officer the ex the officer i think his name was nelson pereira as the judge said she wasn't even sure it was an appropriate basis the sentencing but it wasn't tested he wasn't a witness they were though they relied on the detention hearing that we contended wasn't part of the sentence and proceedings that neither the owner know what the officer testified to the tension proceeding ok and then the second issue is under him out i'm trying to understand your argument there was a in that just the colloquy at the sentencing hearing there was a discussion about the start date for the appointment yes which i take it you're still raising now absolute ok we think there's a separate issue was independent of the start date no matter when it started as i understand you to be arguing because there was such a question as to whether the appointment could be consummated by the actors involved in the conspiracy that you  defendant both agreed to the judge to respond to was seeking to increase it to levels she used the salary of the judge times each year so the contention is it was too speculative to be a basis why don't i mean this is does that mean that we give no value to that aspect of the deal it means that in this case and these facts were trudging never applied for a position with a position wasn't open to him that you can't year where he made no application that was available even if he wanted to judge ship in the future and even if it would have been fifteen thousand dollars a year an increase allegory i don't think you can add question is if we did the six years plus the amount that we know he did get don't you get to the same amount you can you get to you if you don't run into you get two more to the get over played by the judge but again so the only way that this could cash out in your client's favor is if we gave it no value the only way is that you gave it no value because you had quantifiable pride and because judge that there had to be some probability a likelihood something beyond hope that would make this a quantify of all ride where we could start saying x number of years times x dollar defense was trying to blame my client and the government of course was prosecuting a co schemer theme the judge was convicted and got a sentence despite his being in the public official that was only one year greater than that  steps to achieve that objective and this is clear from from the record for example there is information on the record from the court or from its trial of any and you know that ice event was sent to lido informing him by december twenty ninth two thousand and twelve somebody had already spoken to the governor regarding a policy for the judge the next day the plan was for legal to drive the judge to the golf tournaments so that he would meet an outing which was one of the main fanciful not only a change in position but i want to i want to be sure that my salary will be doubled and also a bit o says judge i'm going to set about to do that i'll get you a position and also see success if you will that what the judge wants could ever happen unless you're with it if it's appropriate to to if what they're doing is appropriate what they're asking for based on the impossible for some reason that the defendant does not know does not make does not cause it to not be counted if you will and we cited case law to that fact if you have a case where it was which is not this case where something was so fat simple that i do you may have a problem then with regards to the conspiracy itself whether there was an agreement a meeting of minds whether there's this this is  with regards to the possibility of vacancies there was information on the record the court this is at page one hundred seven of the antics it made of it said that it had heard of it took judicial notice  even been appointment to the supreme court of puerto rico further proving that there were vacancies available so there is information that to that effect however our argument is that even make me an appellate judge and his understanding was that at the end of this they will make him one that i think it's the plea agreement doesn't quite read that way maybe it's an indictment it says that the judge agreed  well based based on what they read just on the evidence at trial if the case is decided this issue is by looking at what the judge would have received had event but that's if there were things that we don't know because we don't know whether there were even a vacancy we don't know whether the governor would have gone through with the appointment all we know and all that he could have reasonably thought one might include is that i'm going to get assistance to get me as also had this dream of retiring as an appellate judge so and that would have been retired would be more valuable if you obviously if you retire on the basis at the time you have a higher salary right yes yes the district court made a reasonable estimate here conservative estimate didn't even count the increase in retirement benefits that you would or would have received if i write only yes i write that the judge at one point early on says that he viewed the this kind of case is something that you would do for one hundred thousand dollars i think he said not even for one hundred ninety thousand four hundred thousand dollars so what do we make of that fact because obviously he thought the value of this whole scheme with a hundred thousand dollars coming to him and if you just look at the record and you add up to sixty sixty thousand dollars that he didn't get just ship the wining and dining income tax payments his garage jobs to his nephew and his brother who were an economic burn for him this was more than ninety five thousand dollars and those that you  he wanted jobs for them that's correct your honor and those jobs have value to him and actually the court didn't count those jobs and put those jobs had value to him because they were an economic burden to him he had used subsidizing them solely on its calculation of the eight years no i understand that there is evidence in the record that would have permitted it conclusion that it was more than a hundred thousand dollars adding other things but as i read it he mentioned these other things but then he says probation relied on the eat years salary as an appellate judge that's what i'm getting the number of ninety six thousand or whatever it is so what are we supposed to do with that if we thought that calculation doesn't make sense even though the record as a whole plausible number that seems to be what the district court at the end uses as the number even though he mentions many any other things that if you add them up probably could get to that number i understand what are we supposed to as an appellate court record reasonably supports a finding that district court relied on those on those other numbers however there was really not a lot of discussion on those other numbers because those other numbers by themselves would not have gotten over the ninety five thousand dollars threshold so the focus of the discussion was those other numbers however the parties had stipulated there's it's on the record sixty thousand doesn't judge and also you would have information on the record from what the parties stipulated and the defense would have waived any argument against counting those other numbers that allow for this court to easily reach over the ninety five thousand dollars that's wh must be affirmed on a finding that the district court hasn't made well we understand that the court did consider those numbers but if this court were to to understand otherwise then still it would be able to count because this court can the evidence in the on in the previous art he did not object to those numbers perhaps i misunderstood you i thought you considered without consideration of the value of the public judge these are the items that have been correct and and we don't have to send it back to this record for it to make a judgment as to what its valuation would certainly not your honor because in this case as i mentioned the parties had stipulated to our numbers and they would have waived in your view to the well thank you i'm one is the indictment as well as the plea agreement talks about assistance multiple over x you know make the allegation that the judge wanted assistance rather than the judge expecting the judge ship with mr recipe you know could produce the judge that's consistent with the evidence with there were three attempts to have a single meeting six years i would contend of a speculative as the seven or eight in the context of a judge who never made an application for the judge in the guidelines talk about an objective standard it talk about value be anything obtained which is sixty five thousand dollars and some assistance or some story of assistance it's not couldn't be quantified absent more conduct like an application were to be obtained again  and it was if it's reasonable but reasonable requires that you do something you don't sit at home and wait for a governor to come and say you're a judge you have to start taking steps towards your goal of being a jerk this sixty five thousand dollars that's quantifiable that's real that's intent and the elevation of the base offense level because this was a corruption of a sensitive person satisfies