unwarranted sentence sentencing disparities which of course is a statutorily required factor for the district court to consider and the district court did how the information that the is relevant to this came in through the government but that doesn't take crime it isn't it is serious the district court wasn't especially where the facts because they weren't included in the information that was originally tendered so the disproportionate come out right on the fly they do and so the district court is trying to make an assessment  hurried fashion and if you'd consider it and they're not related conspiracies exactly but if they excuse me they're not related crimes exactly but if you are consider as people who are engaged in the same types of offenses in one is related to another i think that you would naturally what's the difference i mean it does happen some of the people in oliver's operation wind you know get their money invested in in what i'll call the you know the wat about the sentencing right not be unreasonable to request the district court to do that that's for the advocate to do but once the information is before the court the court must consider and address it and that is highly part but if you have somebody who is much more responsible for a more egre it should be considered by the district court it would have taken much for the district court to consider it but the district court did and the record shows that that's the procedural error i'm not saying that the district court cannot reason through this and say that the sentence should still be fifty one months consequential crime he's got a testimony from a couple of victims people are talking about their parents giving them life savings that are now destroyed and so on i'm sort of that different aspect of this but rational adult would not necessarily take that as a literal statement of an actuarial table what your honor said by way of explanation for what had happened would be entirely appropriate for the  say that about the severity of the offense the difficulty that it caused people but if the district court labored under the misbelief that somebody actually died or had diminished life expectancy years off their lives as a result of this that's the problem and all i can do is take it face value with a district court said this took years off people's lives in so far as the evidence that your honor mentioned it doesn't show that that happened that showed that somebodies life was made more difficult which could you possibly show that it's one of those things that even if somebody had a stroke a year after they found out about this you would never be able to make a causation showing between you know the victimisation and the stroke it's just it's not one of those things it's amenable to proof which is why i think it's just a figure of speech if it's the government's burden and so for the district court to make a statement and assessing the severity of something if the record doesn't support it and you can't show it phrase it differently but don't say this because this is not amenable to proof and you're right your honor so the district court should treat it as a fact that implicates sentence and i can't think of anything that's more significant when you're handing out a sentence to say what you did has caused or may have caused somebody to have a shortened life that's just something that the judge shouldn't have done if it was a clumsy manner of expressing the severity of what had happened that's fine but i just have the bare record as do you and we don't know what the district court said other than the words that judge of erred by imposing the two level announcement for the leadership and the judge did not make findings they were in the p s are those findings that were adopted came from there however if we look at those in regard to the application of for three planning such they were in any way recruited and in fact he did not recruit mr smith who learned of the collect disinvestment through somebody in terribly different from mr oliver so since he did not recruit anyone that's another relevant factor here and also he had no control over mr smith mr smith was out doing pitches on his own to potential investors there's nothing in the record that shows any recruitment any authority any decision making any control over this other individual and if you were to take the p s r and that's all we have here and look at it you'll find that it's lacking and so under a plane air analysis and that's where we're at because it wasn't objected to at the time of sentencing we have that oliver had learned of with prior investors as a company called b l g that he invested money through with the exact same one percent guaranteed return you can't lose your investment you can withdraw your money at any time and smith had no idea about that investment until he had met with oliver and then agreed to start selling those investments for him so i guess it depends on what you think recruit means because it's actually the other person hangs your meyer who  rings minutes into the operation maybe he likes what oliver says later but i guess the question is the meaning of recruitment cracks but in this case the defendant didn't challenge the enhancements so there was no  through electors himself as well so in addition to that evidence of recruitment there's also other evidence that oliver didrex method to do certain things specifically as to the method for soliciting the investors which was crucial to get them to invest because of the investors had known of the true nature of the investment they would not have invested it was the that was the part of the scheme that made it successful the fact that it was guaranteed and they could withdraw the money at any time in addition so the it's that smith is the fast talker you know and oliver is somehow the brains behind the operation oliver also recruited his own investors as well but smith had a network of individuals through his insurance business that he could you know try to recruit or try to solicit investors in addition to that oliver also claimed a larger share of the proceeds from smith received a total of approximately sixty thousand dollars and while we couldn't track every dollar oliver received hundreds of thousands of dollars for of the investors money and including that he would direct where the money would go then once it was received that there was a memo filed by the parties regarding the specific terms of supervisory release that the defendant only objected to certain conditions but did not object to the guidelines range calculated in the pre unlike the case with defendant cited downs the range what the high end of the range was equal to the maximum term of supervisor lease so the defendant has an articulated how the judge specifically stating the range is one t is what this court has held and numerous other cases the judge did consider it's our position in it that the ratio is quite different if you look at what watson was up to and his sentence and then you look at it all over it is quite different ratio correct and  sentence may have created unwarranted sentencing disparities with other individuals as this defendant and so maybe that sentence was the one that was improper not this one especially when the sentence was within the guidelines range so unless for facts are necessary to support the those were limited to what is in the p s r if there were additional facts that are in the record to support it i don't know what those are but insofar as they may have come from the government's version of the offense that doesn't cut it it needs to be a finding by the district court you know with the p s r is limited to it seems to me is much more limited than what the government explained as the supporting reasons for the enhancement if there is a disparity problem in the other sentences to hire this ones to the government says that maybe they other one was too high thi when out of the court that the judge also said in the record you're never going to pay this restitution so then how is the skeptical and how is that as a valid reason to give the maximum period of supervised release when you say you're never going to do this thing so to extend the surprise at least make it a maximum to do something that you say he's not going to do seems like it's inconsistent with the purpose of supervised release if you've got a valid reason to give it but that doesn't pass muster so i don't have anything additional ask questions for me and i think