oh ok thank you insane as compared to his codefendant antonio rivera and in particular the disparate way that the district court treated both of these defendants post sentencing rehabilitation unsing came around mr rivera cited his good behavior in prison his participation in teaching activities the district court found that in its own words admirable and that among other things resulted in him receiving a twenty year reduction in the sentence from sixty to forty from sixty to forty mr avila man had very similar in fact virtually identical post sentence rehabilitation he had known fractions in prison he learned a skill through his work in prison he helped teach art to fellow inmates which you know is this the same as the teaching activities that mr rivera participated in and in mr avila men did all of this despite documented cognitive and emotional deficits and in his case rather than calling it admirable rather than reducing the sentence as the district court  mr rivero the district court did not say a word about that and mr villa men received no credit for it at all on to pepper and it's progeny but i think he's entitled to a comparable percentage reduction i would submit that he is intitled to some degree of reduction whether right or comparable if what's necessary for deterrence or what's necessary for just punishment can be lower than twenty five years if that's what the judge concludes then the good behavior would be a plea of no moment right well your honor first of all miss development received thirty years both that the original sentencing and that the remained and in answer to your honor's question i would submit there was a disparate treatment with regard to just punishment and deterrence as well mr rivero was a part of this conspiracy for only half of the time it occurred he was a mr whaley was found to merit twenty five years as opposed to the security guard miss development who gets thirty the ringleader the boss the owner mr rivera only gets ten years  more i would submit that that smacks of arbitrariness when in there on they were finding that that the defendants had committed multiple rapes well your honor i would submit that is very strong evidence veracity of those findings and their findings well your honor i would submit i'm i would point the court as i did in your brief to the government's brief the last time this this case came up on appeal where they government is stating as fact that among other things certain of these women who worked at the bars recruited friends of theirs and in one case their little sister to work there and if this is a house of horrors with multiple rapes it sounds like the last appeal well your honor i would submit the sentencing was it issue in the last appeal to and i would submit that the same i'll reserve my time if there's nothing further from the court at this time ok thank you morning jim brandon for john whaley in my brief i have other issues in addition to the substantive and reasonable ness of the sentence that was imposed mr whaley was sentenced to twenty five years as he was originally to the same term first of all there is procedural on reasonable notice in the sense that the judge never issued her findings with regard to what the ultimate guideline range was which is highly unusual when you read it knows normally all my sentencing is begin with the judge as they should at the starting point with the judge issuing a final guidelines calculation that  did not rule on the parties disputes at the time of the sentencing with at least with regard to the criminal history category the defense had argued that this defendant was not a criminal history category six and was a five we never had a ruling on that we all we are reviewing this point really that's correct how is your client hurt the client is hurt because at this point i don't think he knows how the judge got to the ultimate disposition and the way i read the sentencing transcript but it's you don't have to alleged enhanced months that he had lost at the original sentencing so presumably he was doing better and ended up getting the same sentence it appears to me when i read this record that she did not she the judge did not make the fullest deepest understanding of all of the facts that might be rewarding of still a lesser sentence the second time around especially in light of the fact that the serious bodily injury in the hands meant was not found applicable the judge say that she would give the same sentence regardless i don't recall that it's workable ok the second procedural error that i find it from this record is that the judge denied the mitigating role adjustment the court may remember that following the original sentencing in this matter the sentencing commission changed section three b one point two of the guidelines to encourage sentencing courts to impose mitigating rowlett just months i think that mr whaley is deeply deserving of such a mitigating role it just meant he had no  overall understanding of the scope and the structure of the conspiracy he has extremely low i q i would argue that the rivera's actually abused him similarly to all the women working at those bars they are t she could take another look in which she'd give him twenty five years yet again as defense counsel said below such a term of imprisonment really is generally reserved for murderers there is a huge amount of mitigation with regard to this particular defendant  his life story is terrifying in the ribbon and so he really there is evidence that he it least groped some of the women but not to the extent that the other defendants did and the women at that women to and from work ok thank you my name is amy beside represent the united states on this appeal just briefly to respond to issues that counsel have raised as to defendant vellum and with the claim to the disparate treatment with antonio rivera i think there are a couple of answers to it i think one of which judge sullivan you've observed i think that the judge in sentencing all three defendants frankly one to the bottom of the guideline range to bill look to two below guideline sentences she was doing a sentence outside the guidelines she had looked at all the pacs before her and decided on the basis of this conduct for how long it went on for each defendant even looking at the mitigating factors looking at whether they had any morse at all looking at all of those things together and found that the sentences that she impose were what she felt was appropriate regardless of you know again the claim that really she should have given more weight to this fact or the other that kind of balancing is certainly within the court's discretion and there seems to be no doubt as i remember from the last appeal that some or most of these women had voluntarily participated in the in the sex trades before these events i made that point in the dissent i suppose it's it if it's just a dissent but did the core take that into consideration i believe that the court certainly had before it counsel's arguments even in the reset and saying some some of the attorneys were making the same arguments as they had made in the last sentencing and on appeal that some of these women were forced and weren't believed and and again just to clarify i think the record is a little unclear how many victims if at all had participated there were some i think on cross examination where you could claim that maybe they were involved in something like i think mel c was the example that comes to my mind but there are a number of victims that there's just no information in the record to suggest that and i can i  ust and because the corporate put it i didn't remember this one or another of them were recruiting their siblings there were a couple who certainly were avery i don't think that would be happening would well i think it depends on at what point they did and why they did  that we really don't have a detailed record as to what that was but even regardless of how they got there there were certainly some that clearly said that they were misled and clearly were forced were forcibly raped were held while customers were sexually assaulting them were raped when they were unconscious you know regardless of what they went into nobody consents to that but the problem here is that it's somewhat casually dongas and i mean it's sort of surprising to me that there was no explicit finding of what the guidelines were with respect to mr brandon's kline surprising to me the government didn't say judge you forgot to announce what the range is here but there weren't findings on some of these other issues considering this was a remake right well i think as to mr the judge what the judge was focused on was what the panel had had focused the judge on which was it was a recent thing for all purposes right i do understand that but i i'm just i'm trying to explain the record as as it as it is the court was well aware that the panel was concerned about making findings as to does the serious bodily injury of enhancement apply and if so which of any victim does it apply mr whaley's case she found that it did not and then does the aggravated sexual abuse and handsome and apply in which case to how many victims and for mr whaley she found that it did as to some of the criminal history category i think what went on there is if you look at the history of objections prior to the reset and saying counsel had raised the claim again that he should have been in criminal history category five and took issue with two separate convictions where probation agreed that they shouldn't have been counted took away those points so he dropped from sixteen come on history points to fourteen as to the remainder of the criminal history challenge counsel had raised it i think this is in the fifth p s r denim had said essentially well look he was reset for violation of probation on all these different offenses on the same day so that it should be the same sentence rule and probation responded and correctly so that no these were all intervening arrests it was all he was already convicted and then re sentenced on them so they do appropriately count counsel at sentencing did not be raise her personal history objection again leaning toward the implication of that is that and she was very diligent about raising all of her other objections that she implicitly agreed with that assessment and i think we have confidence the court did find it in the statement of reasons and we have confidence because in the record as judge korman has pointed out the judge was very explicit as to mr whaley on page twenty six of the sentencing transcript which looks like it's one eighty nine of whaley's appendix that everything is the same if they were successful on appeal list anything as to the sentence everything is the same so i think here especially on a plane or claim we just we don't have the showing of the substantial i agree the record could have been better i agree that i should have said more to ask for a formal calculation on the record and i apologize for not doing so but i think that the the sentence should be front and that ground as to to go back to this development claim of the disparate treatment with mr rivera the only other thing i would say besides the argument i really made is that for both  wally they started in some senses in a much worse spot in terms of their prior personal history both of them had childhoods both of them had limitations with education even more so the mr vellum and who grew up in a stable childhood the p s r documented even though again one parent left that he had a stepfather who was very helpful and supportive in his life he got services at school and he was able to graduate with the both high school degree the other two had limited education and for wally in particular he had mental health issues that weren't getting treated for those people i think to make strides they're coming from a much farther place back and so i think the district court could credit their rehabilitation may still have decided as your honor has pointed out that there was a four by which you wouldn't necessarily go based on the conduct that was alleged improvement or at least the judge found in this case and if there are no further questions on rely on our papers like you will hear about very briefly your honor not all of these defendants received below guideline sentences on remand missed of ilam and receive the guideline sentence the other two defendants received below guideline sentences both of whom did the same sort of extreme conduct that miss development was accused of and in fact in mr rivera's case who is the acknowledged leader the organizer  the owner the originator he received eight below guideline sentence and his original sentence was reduced by one third missed of ilam and was the only one who received the guideline sentence on remand with regard to whether mr rivera or mr whaley was started in a much worse spot i would submit certainly that miss development didn't come to this offense in a good spot he had documented cognitive an emotional deficits that he has been i mean he did graduate through bosis but he has continued to struggle with all of this and his activities in prison including his helping of other inmates through teaching them art was despite these limitations and certainly all other things being equal your honors the conduct that mr avila man is alleged  engaged in is no worse than what mr rivera is alleged to have engaged in and in fact mr rivera among other things ordered a woman beaten half to death because he wouldn't get an abortion  and this isn't something that mr wu element had anything to do with this occurred well after miss development had left these bars and i would submit any interest in deterrence with regard element and i would point out also that the district court credited mr villain in statement that he would not commit any further crimes but that this does not even even if we were to disregard all of the evidence casting doubt on this being sexual slavery i would submit that the conduct is does not provide a meaningful basis to differentiate between mr rivera and mr villain them concerning mr rivera getting a twenty year reduction and this development getting nothing thank you will thank you thank you all well our reserve decision with respect to united states versus rivera seventeen fourteen sixty eight that is taken on the mission case of united states versus