thomson and as i see it their return meant that it was the jews are turning not just to adjust her supervision conditions but also what was in play was a course ability to sentence her to whatever  how long she should be incarcerated and so i filed a motion i guess i would cultures carry in to supporting a breach of the plea agreement because i knew that they were going to be making the same argument the same the government is staying within the boundaries of the plea agreement the government doesn't have to be enthusiastic about ten years it seems to me they're entitled to answer other questions but you know why was that why does it help you to get i defendant with some significant miller giving factors certainly no criminal record recall no one record violence as in many white collar cases you've got plenty of mitigation arguments that can be made promised to recommend this is one of those please remain still leaves the ultimate choice of sentence up to the court that's the typical kind but that but the government certainly saying you know i don't think a minute less than ten years is  right and i responded to that in that respect in that they also have other obligations that are more specific in the plea agreement to you know keep a recommendation to ten years what they that a general view of the comments made could anyone to conclude that this is anything other than an argument for the maximum sentence and then say but ten years there's there are comments in here that say that people have been ruined for life put it that way and degree when there ninety's in the seventies and eighties life is not very the end of life is not very all right so more or less which hamilton just said you know well on the one hand here mitigating factors on the other hand here that factors we think the best balance is ten years instead they just say our recommendation is ten years and by the way it's pretty awful person in this is why i'm not recommending that you know you go twenty years or you know this is right i temper it to a point where sound it really there's a lot of bad things but there's no that discussion so i think that is a review of this record and he answers that weren't anticipated by the government in the pleading and then when asked i think that's advocacy when you say i think that a price on this basically saying i think i should apply the other way they hand over at the could say well i can't you know i don't take a position on it or something like that but instead it was an advocate someone advocating for he answers in a guideline that the deal was the deal and i don't think that she got the entire deal that she had asked for and i think it did have devastating consequences  wasn't the ten year period i mean there's a there's a guideline range that gets calculated where the ten year period is actually at the bottom of the guideline range and then there's another guideline range playing around with even if there was a breach in this case it's incumbent upon us to demonstrate that she was prejudiced that the judge was somehow affected by this if you look at the judge's sentence in one transcript where really the breach they're claiming occurred there not necessarily claiming as much that it occurred at the second sentencing in the comments at least made to the court but at sentencing one what you'll see is that the judge was not necessarily persuaded by what the government was arguing in this case but the judge immediately when it started pronouncing sentencing it's been some comments referred to a victim impact statement quoted for almost four pages five pages from this victim impact statement again nothing the government  presented but something that a victim said and the judge's sentencing comments really focused on a theme that was raised in a victim impact statement lack of conscience of the defendant and that was replete through the judge's sentencing com cing that shows she wasn't prejudiced by the government's argument so if you look through the judge's arguments as judge hamilton said there were a lot of of the matters that were raised  to made as far as the sentencing guidelines when you have the attorney saying that the government's acting appropriately here and canned state the last state the facts to the judge without without violating a plea agreement and then responsibility well i was i did this because mr percy was putting pressure on me to do this convenient excuse i guess is what the hell i do and then the governor went on to say there's plenty of defendants that you sentence that have a long long rap sheets that have been in and record that actually is a giving factor everything single chance of their rise for the government to argue for a maximum sentence was being put forth in front of the judge and then the end so but i recommend ten is not is not telling at the