law it should have been caught below but went in and consequently there's a reasonable probability that the sentence is more than one year longer than it should be clean air review i understand that but i mean we can just cut to the chase here because at some point you're going to go to the recent supreme court our decision on planar i suspect and the point is that everything that i read from the sentencing i agree it's the colloquy not the pronouncement i think the clerical error if there was one was in statement of reasons but that's just my doesn't mean it doesn't have to be remembered but i just do not see anything in your argument that he was mistaken about the quantity of drugs and we would disagree on is that it's a clerical error in the statement of reasons and instead use that to show in the put and the public defender acknowledged at the time that this large term that the small arm with the right amount right absolutely all of it and the public defender therefore it seems to me would have been quieted tuned to the fact i'm not saying they set up the mistake but they certainly would have had their ears attained if the judge had suddenly gone to the higher offense level on the basis of the prior amount of drugs absolutely are out of the public defender should have adjusted and not in this case i don't think that we can take from the silence the fact that all parties remembered at the end of the sentencing hearing that the guidelines had changed the core is required in pronouncing a above guideline sentence to know both that it's a double guideline sentence to explain the fact and the degree of the deviance from the guidelines every day and i think most of the public defenders can recite unfortunately in their sleep the script for an upward variance and it always involves acknowledging that there is in fact an upward variant the public defender did not object is in fact more evident that everybody in the courtroom had forgotten what the correct guideline range was by the end of the sentencing hearing certainly there was no objection but we recognize in having the pl the defendant clearly had a prior criminal history and i guess my i mean apart from whatever i guess my bottom line would be we can't tell but there's a pla error if there was an error it would have affected the defendant substantial right but under the circumstances maybe this feeds back into my feeling that there's not a plane error i'm not sure that i think it's highly unlikely that the integrity and fairness of the proceedings are risk because the whole sentencing transcript is how long twenty pages that leave so you're saying that between page one and maybe fifteen minutes later the parties for god i am your honor ok not that it matters but i think thirty minutes later but yes that is the argument that we're making here i think it's important to distinguish i think that to consider whether or not the air is clear at that stage double counts the plain error standard and it improperly increases the burden there entire imposition of the sentence as this court and the supreme court have said so the proper remedy would be a full review and in order to allow the judge to engage in the proper consideration particularly true this was as are all pointed out if thirty minutes sentencing hearing a single witness was called for that well but that's not true because it cuts into the district court stock in there are often significant travel costs and security costs incurred on re sentencing there there is especially when the public defender asked a recent forty you know defendant sentenced to forty months now of his  years so this is a different matter but where we go on what i did take issue with the supreme court talking about the small number of recent and sings because the fifth circuit does sentence twenty percent or more of all criminal defendants in the u s so the burden of the ruling like that falls quite disproportionately on the fifth circuit which was reversed of course  there's enough here that he could end up with the same soon anyway right i'm not saying that suppose inform your argument i'm just saying you acknowledge their right i believe that it would be within the judge's power to i he did say that that was his the driving factor behind the sentence and then you close decided to end at that or near the front of what he believed to the correct guidelines to be so it's not entirely clear that only me and the judge would not impose a sentence toward the top of the correct guidelines certainly mr miller has a criminal history it's been considered in the least and the report it's part of the different courts reasons can be as long as they need to be they can be sure the matter is relatively straightforward all the court needs to do is listen to the arguments from the parties listen to the evidence get the guidelines range correct and give sufficient reasons here in addition to doing those is in a case in a case like this is to clear up confusion of it at the district court level when the district judge a cop gets the guidelines or into wrong a good example of that is in the twenty a j case where as in my case the district of believe that the guidelines range was seven years to life or that there was no guidelines or range when in fact the guidelines are in for seven years to seven years and this court first determined that there was confusion because a district court got the guidelines range in correct during the oral pronouncement and then after determining that there was confusion based on the incorrect guidelines calculation look to the statement of reasons in the p s r to clear up the confusion an incorrect statement of reasons of looking at the case an incorrect statement of reasons can be used to justify a reversal of a exactly what you're asking about i think the closest answer the best answer i can get to that is to say for instance in this court's decision in for a good analyzing read and go looking at what the report has to do in order for instance to be valid in a situation like this we've not raised and argued that the reasons given were inadequate we've not raised a claim that can be written statement of reasons from the oral statement of reasons and we do not r outside say more it they're not required to use a magic term variance or no your honor and again our argument is not that the judges reasons were inadequate was that he did not state explicitly that it was a variant absolutely that would be significant new law for the absolutely your honor ok that the argument that we're making is that experience conscientious judges like judge them out in satisfying their requirements under the law and are under the case law and under the statute would not be able to get through that requirement without saying deviance without seeing variance without in some way acknowledging that they're imposing an above guideline sentence plus they were trying to he's not he's not writing a fokker novel he's attempting to follow the guidelines attempting to follow his obligations and in practice there there are no cases where a judge imposes a suicide on tape upward variance and nobody can tell that it's an upward variance if somebody had walked into mr miller's sentencing even a minute late they would have no indication that this court was imposing not just an upper variance but a significant upward variance and a significant upward variance that was entirely consistent with the iranian guidelines that were in the p s r in front of the judge that were in the sentencing recommendation in front of the judge and the likely in the notes that the judge brought into the sentencing hearing you get fifteen minutes to correct correct correct a four time offender and he's got this recent events so i'm just struggling with how fifteen months is so pale with the record that the person hands in the grand scheme of this and  has recognized that correctly calculating the guidelines is essential and it's an essential first step and that the correct guideline should remain a framework throughout and that's because the guidelines and the sentencing reform what's going on at center if there's i mean it's not a chastisement but i mean both and i'd like to show not alluding that somebody so weary as not my point you know that something but just sense is going on and it's right whatever the period of time it was not knowing a little subtext is well you know how powerful belief is this the in will informed parties here we're sitting here with the judge gives a sentence and this doesn't give pause it's you know there's a today as opposed to just treating the other way to get the best arguments both sides have on you know an interesting proposition has been raised to itself to take a look at it give it our best shot and let you know in due cour