apparently the only issue i think worth addressing and i'll stand corrected obviously if i'm wrong is whether or not mr for hartle has the ability and this court has jurisdiction to determine whether or not the ultimate sen circuit and as the court is where mr harding was not challenging the application of the united states sentencing guidelines he's challenging the ultimate sense of fifteen months and it's his position that sentence sentencing reform act passed you gave us the guidelines you couldn't appeal any sentence to us basically and i actually couldn't appeal period and i appreciate that i do think that the government's position and i would like to make one statement i'm not suggesting and support is not suggesting that the district courts refusal to depart downward under a traditional guideline analysis for his post accounts rehabilitation as is review factor set forth in thirty five fifty three eg so if the sentencing guidelines are as the government suggests the stopping point for reviewing courts analysis and if there is no issue with respect to the calculation of the sentencing guidelines then the standard of reasonable n'est becomes almost irrelevant because then the only conclusion can be that the united states sentencing guidelines albeit advisory are reasonable and to preclude appellate review of the reasonableness of the ultimate does well they're within the bounds of reasonable but of course we would even get there under under the theory we don't endure is next in line that's correct and there has to be a situation the united states i think is facing here two years on another case but there has to be a situation where a traditional pot possibly unassailable application of the sentencing guidelines you know the difficulty i think with the argument and i'm not suggesting that i've signed it but there's a range of sentencing and the reasons that the judge picks a b c and he doesn't he you know it may not appear reasonable to ask but it did to the person who had all the facts and the parties and the lawyers and heard all the arguments it's a different thing don't you think i agree it is a very difficult thing i do see situation where the law right now doesn't require the district court judge to to stay inside a cli or specifically his or her reasoning on the thirty five fifty three extremely morpheus but if the thirty five fifty three factors are to have any type of weight with respect to the ultimate sentence and if they are factors that are to be considered in conjunction with the advisory sentencing guidelines the district  since the district court would have to give a much more specific delineation of how you consider these thirty five fifty three factors and then whether or not the sentence is reasonable  good morning your honor may please the court my name is when i represent the united states of america and in this case a number of issues are brought up initially with respect to whether or not the district court judge properly considered the guidelines and also properly considered thirty five fifty three we of course believe that the district court to properly do that first off start out the at the crack starting point which is determine the correct guidelines range and subsequently it did consider the thirty five fifty three a factors that a recent case of that just came out of the ninth circuit united  tony mix indicated that the judge need not recite every single thirty five fifty three a factor and go through it in detail we believe that in this case it's consistent with mix and it says the judge both on the that it's not binding on us at the present time but it's just more loss for information yes your honor that i believe it's correct and on to the next issue which is of course not final yet but the jurisdiction of the court a but left the remainder intact in the court specifically stated that it was a surgical x x that it intended to to leave the remainder of the f r a intact with regard to reasonable us we believe that it would be reviewed for reasonableness if there's something that goes above the guidelines if it's within the guidelines or below the current the guidelines it's the same the same statutory framework that existed prior to these are the only portions of the story that we were that they were exercising out of the statute the remainder remained intact and our position is the remainder most of this as drawn or had stated was any any circus that was about that argument of the government yet we had at this point in time it's a really very very much an evolving law i'm not aware of any other circuit that is bought that you think we need in the pinion precedent that wasn't as clear cut as our circuit and our circuit was very clear before and bowker even though it didn't go into the my new show of this aspect of sentencing they did state their intent was to keep the majority of the statute intact and simply excise portions that the excised and they again repeated over and over and over of the specific questions that were excised well this this case presents a little variation but we do have some cases we have we have certain will set forth in our general orders on what uses have priority on questions and there are some in the pipeline that will probably affect this so we may end up deferring until those cases are decided and then seeing what's left i don't think any one single case can entirely answer that the all the issues that are brought up by these post booker appeals to the topic whether or not this makes a defect a mandatory if there's no jurisdiction i don't believe the does i believe that the court still has discretion to sentence with then and without outside of the sentencing guideline range and so in effect i don't believe that makes it defacto mandatory simply gives some sort of a good measuring stick i mean in terms of practice we need a measuring stick out there to determine what is reasonable what is it and we certainly pragmatically can't have everything single most other all other cases in the world are repealed and we second guess them maybe we shouldn't but that's supposed to be our job so what's so special about something well first off drawn in the sheer volume second aspect is that again your honor had stated that it's very difficult to be there at the trial stage sure but that's you're just arguing policy now i mean  to all the states in this union and that we need some sort of measuring stick and again you've seen in our alternative argument that if we don't get a holding that the court doesn't have jurisdiction that we would like something some sort of presumption of reasonable this sort of measuring stick so that we work in the cases can be guided by it and secondly so that there is conformity across a number of different cases golly if you if you have his test as testified testified recently in front of congress expressing their great just made the district judges are imposing less rigorous sentences than the reviews under the advisory guidelines and they're very upset about this you think you'd be wanting a collar review all this one reasonable activity that's happening down in the district courts because we speak as one even though he said this that it is the last time you coming when there just to keep