one hundred twenty months he had a guideline sentencing range that was substantially below that and the district court imposed a sentence that was twelve months above the mandatory minimum sentence is mr wade's position that the district court committed both procedural and such procedural error and substantive as well basically the district court failed to address any of mr wade's principal arguments in opposing sentence say well your honor i have to say that obviously the court believed the sentence that it first imposed right and that it imposed in the previous case was reasonable the court be considering how did the facts vary from the root for  and this case at the backs of this case how did they vary their worst was i believe that there were actually more enhancements involved in the initial case i was not counsel on the initial case but i understand that the guideline range of the original case the first case i should say was approximately one hundred thirty five months i believe was a member end of that range and in that case apparently the court believed that that was a substantially this was a s hear crying would had learned his lesson well i think at that point when he imposed a sentence he believed i would assume he may have believed it was unlikely that the that recidivism would occur  problem is that when he sentenced him the second time recidivism was calculated automatically into the guideline range and also to the mandatory minimum his guideline range was substantially lower then it was in the first case so obviously there had to be some additional factors in the first case that were not accounted for in the second case when all of those factors were counted for that existed in the second case he is guideline range basically would have been approximately twice of what the previous previously impose sentence was he then had a criminal history category two which also accounts for that in the a criminal history category of one and obviously there were significant hadn't been significantly more other factors involved to get the higher guideline range so he has recidivism is accounted for with the increase in the criminal impose it's a minimum the government argued the nature of the images involved were justification for an increase above the mandatory minimum sentence it does not appear that the court considered that at all and understandably since that was already accounted for in the guideline calculations the court did point out both that this that he had given a substantial variance in the first sentence one that again the court justified and as to my knowledge the government did not did not appeal and also that he had given him another break when terminal in his term of supervised release early court appeared to have addressed day early termination of supervised release in this case by imposing a ten year term a supervised release following the second case so i can see that there's a direct rationale there that he's that that but that still one of the reasons that the judge gives for giving him an f word variance beyond the ten years despite the fact that both criminal history category mandatory minimum already adjusted his sentence for that and our point is that that the court still had to address mr waits principal arguments regarding and his reset of ism and he also argued regarding the in response to the government's arguments regarding the nature of the images and the court did not your argument was he was addicted yes he was addicted and that as with any addiction there is always the rest have famil or did it he had family support but he had a family that was not clearly aware of the circumstances at that time and they became more aware more aware that he had been convicted of child pornography they did not seem to be aware of the need specific to that type of an addiction they were not educated on what that meant and i guess fortunately or unfortunately where we are much more aware of addictions such as alcoholism or drug abuse and most of us do not encounter addictions to child pornography on a regular basis and i can see where that would be would be understandable on their part basically your honor the court regardless of what  ultimately imposed had to at least consider the basic arguments the principal arguments that were made by mr way and in this instance the court did not consider them in any way and  doing committed both procedural error and impose a sentence that was not substantial substantially reasonable the argument has been made that it didn't matter what the judge said technically saying anything at all was sufficient because a mandatory minimum sentence didn't require the court to say anything at all but that goes against every rule that we have regarding same position of sentence and the need to have a clear and clear record for review well you know how do you when this individual commits that very same offense again after receiving that kind of break where you need to say well you need to address the fact you want to say didn't address the fact that both the guidelines and the mandatory minimum took into account of the prior the prior sentence imposed with both the doubling and tripling the sentence that it could oppose in this particular case thank you i would morning runners to please the court counsel james piper jr every half the united states it is our position the first of the district court did not in any way commit procedural error this case as reflected in the sense in transcript the court in fact considers the a slight increment twelve months upward variance in this case under all the facts and circumstances of this case but we would point to three specific facts one that the appellant was previously convicted of the very same offense committed in the same manner i would point the th presents were in club report indicates that there were over nineteen thousand images of child pornography that he possessed and his first case in this district court was the same judge who provided over the prior conviction and was keenly aware that the second fact would be th was given great leniency in fact the court in the sensing transcript told the defendant i gave you a quote unquote huge break and quite frankly this appellant after be given given given a huge break by this just to court squander that opportunity of leniency in quite frankly made a mockery of the court's leniency by moving forward in committing the exact same offense in the exact same manner making it crystal clear to this very same court that the previous sentence headed in no way deterred him in that he was in no way rehabilit result of that the third factor would point to justify that sentence is the degree of depravity of the child pornography that this defendant possessed in quote unquote the second rodeo is that the district court indicated in this instant case clearly all child pornography is protest in nature but we would submit that several images that this defendant possessed were beyond protest they were diabolical in nature and they were gut wrenchingly detailed in paragraph seven of the he said three fourths in the court openly images was not addressed by the court simply acknowledging when the when the court when the government asked have you read have you read paragraph seven the court basically knowledge jepson thread read paragraph seven the  previous conviction the nine hundred thousand images there were substantially less in this case twenty seven hundred i think we're getting off the mark here the the point is that the court had to consider the predominant arguments raised by the