this case involved an extraordinary quantity of very dangerous drugs that they would just produced and distributed in a versus in a sophisticated fashion and that the drugs were very dangerous and powerful that a drug we argue that there is nothing in the facts and the record to support those facts or what the court believed were facts i start with the quantity of drugs st the monograms was not extraordinary was quite ordinary and i turned to the sentencing guidelines here as the court knows the sentencing guidelines here the base offense level is driven by the quantity withdrawn quantity and the base offense level here was twenty four dollars the drug quantity table as the court is aware runs from level six to less than one kilogram of marijuana to level attributed to mr young level twenty four of the second line in this table is in fact in the middle of all drug offens moreover far below the middle in terms of quantity and that's important when enron hearing mr mr hayes could you speak up please we have a little trouble hearing  statement from the district court that the drugs here were a very dangerous and that a drugs very dangerous and powerful some kind of drugs if nothing again on the record to support a description of this that  drugs in question as being very dangerous the impact here of how the drugs impacted people both could have impacted people are exaggerated the government hayes mr hayes my understanding is that you're the thrust of your appeal is that the district court misapprehended that people on the new haven green that day two years ago had overdosed and therefore treated with undue gravity the quantity and the types of the drugs we have the testimony of the doctors saying these were not overdoses be rationally the intended either these drugs have significant effects on people's nervous systems and on their behavior and their blood pressure and all kinds of physiological functioning and you know the district court gave a sentence that was at the bottom of the guidelines range you know what you don't seem to make a procedural argument that she miscalculated the range and i am i correct in that  to eighty seven months and you've got seventy two months so it's a little hard for me to to accept the notion that these were not a future of awful drugs that he manufactured and that he was in the business of selling people took them and they responded badly to them and you know i don't think you've identified a procedural errors so please tell me exactly what the  this court cited to the users we know that they do it's can't why are they on this on the controlled substance list the question is whether i'm sorry i should say we know that the fact that they came from china these are statements which can be made and are basically a description they really are not the kind of thing that just a difference in the anchoring which would be  we wouldn't appear before the court but the nd tier we have to appear before the court that's two things ever occur here we i argue that those statements would not have been made if it did not occur of the other drug on that controlled substance list occurred right and there's nothing to say that again here the there overdoses there's nothing to say that because that's the intended effect  f what occurred so a make that argument because there's nothing here to say that they were very dangerous or more dangerous than than any other drugs on that list that significant here  again i point to the the actual sentence also i'd ask the court to consider these sentence was imposed after mr young had already served at the very least twelve months for th two months and even had she may post an eighty four month sentence that would have been within the guidelines don't have a difficulty understanding how that fits with error well i would argue that  seventeen months again is two is too much less than than what the court actually polls eighty four months is at the top of the guidelines so if we were to look at  this as sort of a in ordinary cases where just ordinary statements were made as the court just indicated then sure seventy two months might might be appropriate for eighty four months but what they who were here the sentence was driven by the actual statement that that the court may with the court had  these inaccurate i would argue characterization of the quantity and the dangerousness of the drugs in question and the sophistication of mr young's operation when it was just beyond that when we talk about sophistication it was just mr young it was not a conspiracy to distribute that we might see where there is a level of sophistication and there are layers of management if the purchasing items on the internet hoping these leads if you will  district court in making her factual findings however the defense has no issue with the underlying facts that were found regarding the quantity of the synthetic drugs the dangerousness thereof and the sophistication of mr young struggle operation notably the defense did not challenge or object to the district court district court's findings below quantity dangers and sophistication and just to pick up her honest question with respect to the district court's findings the district court did not make any mention of the incident on the new haven green or the fact that the risk that the drugs that were found in the syrians because action would cause overdoses so there was no reference by the submitted with regard to one of the drugs that mr young was convicted of making that it was identified as one of the primary synthetic drugs to cause the overdoses on the new haven green  and given the timing of all of this seems plausible that the district court judge might have taken that into account generally and her assessment of the superiority of the crime the gravity of the crime do you think drugs and more importantly in the government's sentencing memorandum the government made no linkage may no attribution of the drugs that were involved in the new haven green incident to mr young there was no d describing any of the terrible events in new haven green to mr young in fact it really just went to the dangerousness it was the government pointing out that look this is one of the drugs that was found in mr young's possession at the time of the synthetic drugs for the district of connecticut is an extremely large amount of synthetic drugs as a matter of course in this district while there is the typical illicit drugs such as heroin cocaine unfortunately now we see more finding that it was an extraordinary quantity was well taken and it was well based in fact with respect to the dangerousness pronto the defense's own sentencing memorandum made clear that the drugs or some of the drugs involved in this case can cause a rapid drop in blood pressure and can cause dilution the government's own presentation included in the p s r was that these drugs could cause altered mental status loss of consciousness  suicidal thoughts so the government respectfully submit that the dangerousness of this drugs as found by the district court was very well supported in this case finally with respect to the  mr young was a one man drug operation the up pain the synthetic drugs directly from china without going through any middleman process and manufacture the drugs or street level consumption on his own used the internet that really craigslist to pinpoint and identify customers who were directly communicate with him to be serviced for these drugs so finally with respect to the sophistication this was a sentence near the bottom of the guideline range in fact the district court specifically recognized that the sentence would have been higher but for the time served by mr young as a result of his sta of the the arrest here and the prosecution here that was one of the deciding factors in terms of the sentence here and not ask the court to consider that when the government argues that it did not necessarily refer to the new wave in green it did this court has pointed out the way that the government just acknowledged that it did it right right let's assume that they do everything but well well to answer the so what your honor again it goes to the actual sentence  a bottom of the guideline sentence here would have been seventy seven there were months not seventy two months not near the never bottom of the guidelines but the bottom of the guidelines in that had the fact that  court being able to consider what's going on at the time but what i'm arguing is that here it was exaggerated and that is borne out thank you all right i think i think we have the argument mr hayes thank you very much thank you mr can we will reserve decision thank you thank you