so why should we consider any of these arguments that i think you're alluding to in view of the appeal because the court was required to state agreed not to appeal the sentence even when that was imposed no he that the appeal waiver that he signed was a general waiver you hurt your honor he didn't sign an appeal waiver that said i my position about why the like you're saying that he didn't get told specifically that he was waiving challenges to sentences in violation of law and i'm asking you what other one of the ground could you challenge a sentence other than that it was in violation of law in general a so i'm saying not i'm not sure i would accept or i'm not seeing anyway your argument that this the lack of specificity denied him information so that his plea wasn't knowing or his waiver if if criminal defendants are required to sign waivers i mean appeal waivers in order to to get a particular sentence to resolve their case and those waivers are enforced no matter how a judge disregards the law that seems to me to there is an exception around or described by this court that says waivers will not be enforced if the court advocates judicial responsibility to particularly since one purpose served by the requisite statement of reasons it's the fist facilitate collection of sensing data and my position is is that when you have the unique set of circumstances  this case presents to people with similar backgrounds committing the same awful offense you know getting into a gunfight and killing somebody and one person and having it when you the miller guideline range is an odd sort of circumstances that both cases well mr ms said the case was indicted st my client's case was indicted later they were both assigned to the same judge that judge took senior status mr state's case stayed with that judge my client's case went to a different judge they were sentenced two months two and a half months apart and there is no explanation by the nd judge understand  before this rumor said cooperated because there is information in the person's report that the buffalo police had d n a and things like that video but well history said nailed it down as it was that market was going to cooperate against your client is the other shooter in this murder where is your client's cooperation as far as i can see pertained to other drug trafficking organizations and without ourselves assessing it it does seem that a district court could reasonably view these as cooperations of a different kind and that could inform the sentence so i'm not sure right i see that you've got identical circumstances here nothing's ever identical i mean it's still i am aware that it's it's your complaining that your client was sufficiently similar that he should have gotten the same not saying that i'm saying that he shouldn't have gotten the sentence he received would lose ninety more months seven and a half years longer than his codefendant who was there in pulling the trigger at the same time is my client and that this sentence is outside the range of reasonable sentence for someone who participated in a murder right ok so the sentencing range for the he probably would have cooperated against mr said i know we don't but he did eventually cooperate in his cooperation was pretty significant and it wasn't just about drug dealing it was about a series of shootings and murders around  western and central new york really your point is that you think that the legal regime currently in place is no i think it has to be enforced as was it kid can't just be it it can't just be a twist  waiver such as when it's not knowing rowan terry where the sentence is based on an impermissible factor where the government be breached the plea agreement or where the court fails to unseat any rationale for the sentence none of those circumstances are present here district require what the defendant now seeks which is a specific explanation of why the defendant's sentence is nineteen months longer than his separately charge defendant and ramirez this court has refused to require sentencing judges to consider deference to the district judge says what would be the basis for ninety nine dollars difference judged there are three reasons that i and i did not handle the matter below nor did i obviously have a conversation with criminals corporation wouldn't be here but for his corporation let alone the rich isn't that's right and the district court judge there's no reason to believe he did not consider all that it was for it was presented it was argued by the parties at the time of sentencing the nd difference that your the way the guidelines applied to those offenses of conviction are a measurably different one has to be imposed consecutively to the other in defendant work is case and defendant case he just had the one hundred and twenty four j conviction that was against defendant and provided put the government in a position to have a case to prove beyond a reasonable doubt his involvement so even if you were identified at night and i project judge i don't know the investigators knowledge of the time that  judge know he did not actually testify at trial he did i believe he testified in the grand jury judge and i and his identity was also revealed through the course of the litigation of shorty's case i mean at the at sentencing when you read the transcript worth discussing him now i mean he was publicly identified as a cooperate or which put him at great risk and is certainly a proper reason for him both both of the district court judges involved in these matters  category of three on the complaint here judge judges is that that there is a disparity that was not considered between these two co defendants or separately charged defendant but as the court has held in the united states versus frias and recently applied in united states versus amante there is no requirement that a district court consider or explain sentencing differences between codefendant will see that as my ultimate argument it's because the defendant here is now complaining and asking for his waiver of appeal to be voided because it was the sentence was imposed country to law we would get to the merits very quickly judge and so i guess that the disparity here  was considered by judge a large oh he actually expressly said that he's considered the need to avoid unwanted disparities in in the sentencing he was aware of defendant ramirez more son's case he was aware of the sentence he