perspective the vulnerable victim issue the district court impose the horrible victim adjustment for two reasons one was that the victims in the case both spanish and the other was that they knew they were on documented aliens and therefore would not want to report the crime taking the first rationale others speaking spanish i think one of the major problems in this case is that i believe the the inference or the explanation although wasn't fully articulated was that because these spoke spanish they could not seek help or would have difficulty seeking help i think the problem is number one there was no evidence introduced to establish that the mere fact that they spoke spanish somehow would make it difficult for them to seek help i think in southern california a large percentage of the population speaks spanish certainly a large percentage of law enforcement officials speak spanish there or they're recruited because of their spanish speaking abilities oftentimes are required to speak spanish and there's just no evidence in interviews no no evidence to support it with respect to that factor of in addition and in the cost the honest case although it was in a different context this court rejected the notion that spanish speaking ability was somehow  believe that that is our biggest problem this year of the last year is and i guess either a few comments about that the first is that frankly i think it's a little bit difficult not to be too critical but a little difficult to discern the controlling legal principle it was exposure or decent behavior i think in a park or something like that and what the law enforcement officials were doing is they were storing them and saying if you pay a small he will make the charges go away will drop the charges and that of course is a situation where the victims in this case the defendants were not the smugglers all right we've got we've got we've got pirates stealing smugglers the poilus correct and i think that is a distinction a particular doesn't help you well i think it helps because in this situation first of all i just think that syria blast is i mean i understand if they saw the of the circuit i think that there's no reason in the decision but i think it helps in the sense that when somebody is the actual smuggler perhaps there is a relationship that is formed there's a trust relationship that was formed the victim is is vulnerable in the sense that they are trusting themselves this particular individual and then that and then the smaller himself is taking advantage of that particular  english to be relying on the fact that they were spanish speakers but again it's our position that there is no evidence in the record to establish that the fact that they did not speak english somehow made it more difficult for them to seek help and in fact in the government's brief one of the argues the government makes is that because they were spanish speakers they they couldn't protect themselves from the defendants and i find that are in a very interesting because the defendants were spanish speakers an undocumented alien from mexico who spoke spanish so in fact in this case the victims were actually better suited to protecting themselves from the defendants than an english speaker because an english speaker couldn't communicate with the defendant so i really think that the spanish speaking a billion this case was not sufficient to justify the vulnerable victim adjustment moving on to the thirty five fifty three issue when the briefs were were submitted had not been decided i'm sure is the course has now been decided although this court still has not issued its decisions in the cart the yet i believe those decisions are are still pending yet another supreme court case still i understand those decisions may not come down for a while i do believe that under reader though could interpret well then maybe that if my interpretation is wrong then maybe it may make sense to wait for i don't remember what the i think it's go go maybe it makes sense to wait for that in this case i think some of the comments sentence is in the first instance of the district court made a comment that it saw no reason to deviate from the guidelines i think those things tend to suggest that the district court was looking at thirty five fifty three setting up a regime where the guidelines are the most important or sort of the can and where you start off and where you rely on and if there is some other reason to take the case outside of the guidelines then that's what a court mentioned in particular two factors there were some factors mentioned both by the probation office in the op recent report as well as the government to support the fact that these victims were in fact particularly susceptible to a criminal conduct there while the fact that they were aliens potential cultural susceptibility on behalf of an entire culture of the hispanic culture that made them more likely to fall prey to a fraud scheme such as the one in this bill and in that case here by contrast it's very different it's an actual limitation  pitot potential cultural susceptibility and that's what the court rejected not the idea that the inability to speak english in a predominately english speaking society in any way could ever result in vulnerability for that reason we believe it makes sense  brief or for that matter the be court indicated that made these victims for will the only challenge those has been an appellate creation entirely or which again leading back to the standard review in this case it's we're unable to say that the district court erred in not finding that these were not moral victims when there was no argument before the court whatsoever that these were not because of the foreign status of the victim now it's true that that is directly related in some ways to some of the characteristics for example the in italy speak english or other factors but it was not the basis for the course wh important here is that defense counsel had on appeal has attempted to isolate and separate two of these conditions and say individually either due to cost the analysts or other factors that those factors don't apply but here it was a situation that under the who do not speak the language and are unable to go to the authorities even if there were no language barriers because if they do they are going to be arrested deported and perhaps imprison to take advantage of individuals in this situation now the question has been raised about the language barrier that maybe it wouldn't really have presented a barrier to lead up to reporting these crim victims were gone to to report the crimes or whether those people may have spoken spanish that is entirely speculation is beyond the record the fact remains that if there was a language barrier and it may have made it more difficult which was the language used in the program the  that vies read guidelines rather the court repeatedly through the factors and specifically explain each of the factors that it found to have clickable from section thirty five fifty three that the court indicated that  the fact of the court in the clear that would not deviate from that in no way suggests that you used it as a presumption when in fact it is simply did what it is supposed to do in this case it's important that this is the third defendant who was hopefully briefly hotter with respect to the standard of review i know there's been some recent cases where this court has left the issue open as to whether the standard after booker is supposed to be  location to location the elders would depend on the defense for their release well in any kidnapping case the victims are dependent or dependent upon the the defendants for their release i don't see how those make these victims any more vulnerable the last when the animals were in unfamiliar foreign culture you know once again there's no evidence in the record to establish that these particular victims were unfamiliar with the culture we don't know whether these were aggravated felons who had previously been in the united states and  agreed to pay their smugglers a fee to bring him into the united states and i guess here it was the relatives are going to day that the correct right yes but they're so this is essentially submit themselves you know to the they noted that some of the victims or the victims to the people who were being smuggled actually then turned and became the kidnappers that some of the what they decided some of the victims who were the ones that were brought over decided hey this is a good business that these guys are in and they actually joined forces with the people who were doing the kidnapping so i mean i think the sense that these are individuals that are throwing themselves at the mercy of these kidnappers i mean there's just collar types people who wouldn't want to be exposed and it's the same thing here i mean the gaijin is criminal conduct and the fact that they didn't consent to them being kidnapped and the fact that they wouldn't want to report the crime because they hear they are the thirty five fifty three factors the government i guess they've conceded that the proposition that i was saying we just go for the governor has conceded that the district court cannot presumptively rely on the dotted lines and what the government says is while the district court repeatedly stated that they knew that the guidelines were advisory well yes the district court knew that the guidelines were advisory but the issue is did the district court think that they were advisory but they want title to some type understood the guidelines were advisory what should the district court have said here or done in order to demonstrate to us that she really was existentially independent of those guidelines well i guess that there are two issues one is what's the district standard and the other one is what should  what the senate should be i think when it's when the court makes those types of statements suggesting that it believes that the guidelines dictate what it needs to do in the first instance and i'm not saying that i'm not calendar which were mueller versus a county of los angeles and richards versus city of los angeles arson that on the bridge thank you very much