united states versus who is here because he complains that the imposition of time supervised release reasonable in his case  the lifetime supervised release actuarily speaking was forty five years in excess of what probation was asking for and what the government agreed to he did i don't think he said five years he said it could be reconsidered at some point in the future but saying it that it can be reconsidered some point in the future is far different then of course it ok but you know when judge sullivan sentenced him to lifetime supervised release i don't know what st off there were no there was no mention of the any of the factors  and not only was there no mention of it there was no indication that the judge even considered it in this case there was no pre sentence report i don't know what it you about this defendant other than the fact that he had a video in front of him over a video was it the basis of this and judge sullivan said that it was some form of terrorism by putting the video on the internet and i'm not going to dispute that it was a terrible act q jet i object well i invited joint so of him to look at the video well i didn't that i have jacked it in i didn't object in the sense that i resent asking for a less judge sullivan impose lifetime supervised release at that point i didn't say well i object to that but i mean obviously i objected to it because i was asking for far less it was what probation didn't ask for it the government didn't ask for it nobody asked for my response if that point was well you know lifetime correct but in this case and arriving at a decision for life time super for supervised release were just some of and it was say this is a terrible crime and i q the consequences are too great  if i ignore it so i'm going to put you on lifetime supervised release something a little more specific than that and if i can quote him he says this is really a case just like just unlike any i have really seen in terms of just enormity of misconduct and cruelty and the impact it has had based on what i mean if he made he made that statement you know he would have let's take the sex i excusing anything here but let's take the sexual element out of this case if he had looked at the video he would have in my opinion would have been clearly convinced that the the filming she's looking at the camera so if we take all of that out what he did what was wrong was he got in an argument with her common law wife and because he was in an argument with a common l wife he published this video on the internet it's a terrible thing to do but to say that this is the worst crime i've ever seen i mean i think that's an overstatement and if you're going to say it again i come back to the fact that the do not say that you said i have no legal impediment is there any legal impediment well now the judge the judge the legal impediments was that he can't do it he can do it under the statute but is it reasonable i'm here to say it's not reasonable not that there is a statute doesn't provide for a lifetime supervised release you and i have both in a district court if if you think that it's not reasonable then it's your obligation to say that's not reasonable in fact my view is that it's also the government's job to not reasonable and that is a legal impediment we use and was there is no legal impediment which everyone in district court on appeal would understand means it's reasonable within the broad spectrum of is if there's the legality of life time supervised release provided for by the statute speaks for itself whether whether after going through this and making sentencing submissions and asking the judge to impose less time and bringing up the fact of the condition of his mother all of that doesn't mean that i said that your sentence is fine let's go on and you can go to you can go to prison for twenty four months come out do life time supervised release everything's fine i was making the contrary presentation the whole time i was in there so if there is is there a legal impediment it is the statute provides for supervised release yes so therefore there is no legal impediment he wasn't exceeding the statute the statute i submit provided that he could do that and one of the consequences one of the consequences to few can buy a twenty eight year old man being on supervised release for the rest of life is life he can go to jail for the rest of his life without reaction he can go to jail for the rest of his life without a jury trial he can go to jail for the rest of his life without a pre sentence report all of that occurs because the judge said this is a terrible crime i'm giving you supervised release for life and that said he didn't pass it really thing else why wasn't it your burden to say to the district judge  so why isn't it your burden to say to the judge come on now give me more reasons i mean that's exactly what plane errors about everything that went up to the point of i'm giving you  supervised release for life was contrary to giving supervised release for life so the extent that i didn't say i object again i didn't object again i wasn't asking for supervised release for life i was asking for a reasonable sentence of supervised release there were certain six emissions here if this is a package and the fact that at the end of the judge's decision i didn't repeat again and say judge this is not fair this is not reasonable i don't think that means that i waive the argument i made the argument before we came to the decision i wasn't agreeing with him in any point other than the fact that i said yes you can and you can impose supervise released after wife but that doesn't mean that i agreed with the ingredients that went into that decision please the court this you have over the government i represented i represent the government on appeal and i represented the government in the violation of supervisor lease proceedings in the district court as well and i just be clear about something the recommendation of the probation department was five years supervised release that's correct and has the government or the probation authorities changed their view as to that five year recommendation so the government did not make a recommendation as to supervised release at the time of sentencing and the government's view is that lifetime supervised release was a reasonable substantively reasonable sense in this case given the the circumstances the defendant's history his criminal history which was lengthy the fact that figgins was convicted of a serious sexual crime essentially a rape as judge sullivan called it involving a on the underlying state conviction he absconded for approximately a year took that long for parole to find him and during that time they ultimately found him in alabama after they learn not fifteen years of supervised release or ten years of supervised release while a lifetime of supervised release the facts here are truly grievous your honor i think the fact that this defendant served a substantial surprise for you it's correct that lifetime supervised release was not the specific recommendation of probation or the government at time of sentencing but the question here before is extraordinary correct it is a harsh sentence your honor but these are this is really an egregious case one where such a term of supervised release is reasonable well i must say i have no egregious considering that the defendant committed this violation while both on new york parole supervision and federal supervision after barely completing twenty seven months of federal imprisonment after completing a jail term for the underlying sex offense involving a minor this is someone who has a hearty imp's received substantial substantial terms of imprisonment and should be deterred he in culmination of the defendant's history and conduct his criminal history and his conduct while supervision over a period of years and this was the tipping point in front of judge solomon once he had this information in front of him that at this point with all of this information judge solved and determined that a lifetime supervised release was reasonable particularly here his decision was driven by the need for deterrence and to protect the public those were really the driving factors view is that because he failed to object to the prestigious role and reasonable alleged procedure on reasonableness a plain error review does apply as to substantive reasonableness it's the government's view that it question whether it's reviewed for plain error when the defendant fails to object at the time of sentencing but the government's view is that the argument this argument whether the sentence that the sentence here is substantively unreasonable can be rejected on any standard and that certainly judge sullivan did not abuse his discretion given the totality of the circumstances to impose that sentence as a substantively reasonable sentence unless the court has