supporting that decision and finally for purposes of preserving his argument he contends that the district court's reliance on dismiss conduct to increase the sentence with contrary to its due process and  disparities and sentence disparities meaning sentences for other offenders or defendants who have conducted themselves similarly in other words who have engaged in similar conduct it's clear from this case that the district court believed by not increasing mr bridgewater sentence she would be creating sentencing disparities between mr bridgewater's case and other defendants who were convicted of enticement however the plain language of th eighty six provides that the court should avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct and this court clarified that and united states versus scott in that case the government had dismissed charges against the defendants coconspirator he argued on appeal that the court had failed to consider the disparity that would be created between between the defendant sentence and the coconspirators when the latter does not even occur and that is the case here the conviction for enticement did not exist therefore there could be no disparity between other defendants that had been convicted of enticement in doing so the court actually did create sentencing disparities among mr bridgewater and other defendants who had been committed of similar argue that the district court erred when it increased mr bridgewater sentence based on the need to prevent him from reese that abating when there was no evidence to suggest that he was that it reset at this i'm in this case in th and united states versus miller the district court similarly based its sentence in part on recent of us and when there was no evidence to support that and this court found that sentence unreasonable here and the government did not introduce any evidence that mr bridgewater was likely to reach that have date and the district court did not provide support for its appeal not only is there no evidence that mr bridgewater would reset a faith but everything appears to be  that mr bridgewater would be a low risk the recidivism mr bridgewater was in his forty's and he had no criminal history he actually had quite severe medical problems that would make it more difficult for him to reset a bit than the and i'm sorry to hear that he was involved with an honor courage and yes he had as a result he ended up going to her yes he he was involved in and he was talking to an undercover agent on line who he thought was a fifteen year old with the burden of sitting through an objection probably formulaic in every criminal case in that opinion and by saying our review of the sentence for reasonable this is not affected by whether the defendant had the foresight to offer that a sixteen month sentence would not create a sentencing disparity and the government did not disagree with that the government agreed that the same sentence was appropriate it with the court that considered on its own accord that it should increase the sentence based on these reasons that i have mentioned also that i would address that the government has suggested that the defendant had at vance notice  impose i think it covers five pages of the trip where the court announces its reasons for imposing the sentence that at the end of that the court inquired or are there any other arguments that in mitigation the defendant wishes to present to this court and the defend it was silent on the issues they now raise on appeal and according to this court's president in the juicy and garcia security who never that whenever the the district court makes that invitation then the defendant waives any subsequent appeal of any matter that wasn't raised before the district court and i also know that this is further exacerbated in this case this failure but i guess it but what it boils down to is that this court doesn't set the sentence defendants this court sits to determine whether or not the district court made an error and you can't very well say that a district court made an error based on an argument that was the courts would make records this court could review and if the defendant didn't bother to have a court do that and that provides an easy way for this court to dispose of the case but even if you apply the abuse of discretion standard here what that government does believe that this is a slave because that defendant did not respond to the court's question however the court did address the disparity argument and that this is not a case where mitigation argument was not considered she explicitly addressed that and considered it that is why we do not believe that that waiver issue is relevant in this case we would also no that this court has also indicated that a defendant need not make that objection to this and i believe that is a different issue that the court the government has completed in this case appropriate it offered no other evidence in that regard so we would argue that the issue certainly was not waived that the court explicitly considered the issue and passed upon it therefore it should not be