incorrect as a matter of law and i am basing this on the supreme court decision which is clear about what intent means with respect to the national firearms act case to obtain a conviction under the n s a the government in this case should have been required to prove back to the defendant here knew of the features of his error fifteen that was brought that brought it within the scope of the and affect the a t f has similarly interpreted the national firearm act to focus on the defendant's intent so again here it's the intent and the so in other words staples is not interpreting the meaning of intended to be fired from the shoulder rather the court is articulating the appropriate mens rea of that must be proven by the that had not been proven here so we rely on intent because of how this the firearm was was developed created prepared by the defendant definition right that the length of the firearm did not meet the definition of a rifle and so in no way what this is just part isn't that the intent though it seems like the intent was to to modify the shoulder stock so that it would fall within the definition of rifle not that it was service but the use that he was going to use it so with respect with respect to what the that's not based on testimony but is still speculation because what we have been you could read he what would be the agent's testimony he's saying i could shoot from the shoulder that's fine but that's not what it was designed for and it's not as though he shot it from the shoulder he's saying that to the court at the sending and so even if in relying on the testimony what i ask this court to consider as i did the district court we the defense submitted letters from expert letters from the national fire and i'm sorry from the a t f lab and several letters as well as other documentation so we have opinion letters which explains why this was a firearm and what was the question that you claim the district court needed to answer in connection with this issue was it whether or not this firearm to did a right for could e based on its constituent parts made a real then why couldn't the district court rely on that notwithstanding other evidence other contrary of it could have because should give it a lot of thought and that even if the base offense level were twelve she wouldn't post the same sentence anyway so why do we need to resolve the question of whether this was a rifle very serious conduct the sale of six weapon and skulls donz to someone he thought was a convicted felon you have been doing things like sending parts to spread without his friends permission and offering to sell guns to others he was seventeen initially when some of that some of those events took place he was eighteen at the time of the rest he was so i asked the court to consider that all of the gun as at the very least the court would have started at a fencing guideline range of ten to sixteen months and given everything leading up to sentencing ten months on the g p s monitoring the by the home home detention he was back in college although he had been kicked out of one college he was significantly into at least the nd or rd semester of college and done volunteer work he did not violate at all i believe that starting from ten to sixteen guideline range would have changed the whole landscape of this and that's why here i believe that the sentence was procedur sentence even if the guidelines ring which were different were calculated differently i think she actually went so far as to say that the type of firearm the fact that it wasn't for l rifle that increased the guideline range was not as relevant to her not as significant as other factors and she articulate a doing six dollars to eighty seven dollars that it was the circumstances under which she made and sold those firearms and the number that really informed her evaluation of each of the thirty five hundred and fifty three dollars a factors to come to that eighteen month sentence so i think that even if the court was to hear what to find that question with respect to the court here i think she actually made a thoughtful decision about that eighteen month sentence and acknowledged that it would have been an upward departure from other calculus guideline calculations and so i'm understanding the question correctly is that the fact that she here articulated not just boilerplate language to pad you know case it could your honor i suspect it doesn't many but i think that's where the defendant's argument as to whether it was substantively reasonable variance into this evaluation by you know the appellate court it may have been perceived or only reasonable but then there is a question as to whether or not the sentence notwithstanding any procedural errors was substantive reasonable is it within that range of permissible decisions though i do think there is a little bit of a safeguard there if you will if you're able to look at it from both perspectives which was raised by mr com ali here and which the court is hearing you're saying you're and i think the court did that here that i think the court was very that just a course very cognisant that if you gave an eighteen month sentence that that lower guideline range she would be departing upward by two levels a two part two month he got homemade rifle being sold to someone who he thought was a felon in a motorcycle gang who was then reselling the firearms and this was all before the district court and all of a sudden eighteen months agreement right now but i'm just saying in the that's in the statement of reasons that that's an error right because that's what was in the p s r not what the district court found i'm just trying to clarify that that's correct yes the court found the applicable guideline range to be twenty four to thirty months why don't you address the marriage in case we reach it to be a procedural whether it's a machine gun yes or intended to be a machine gun or firearm i think the district court did a very fulsome job and even reviewed to know how you could find that when you look at intended to be fired from the shoulder as appears in the statute which the firearm must be to get this enhanced meant there is the put the issue of plain language what language is used whose intent matters the district court had a back and forth with attorney has about whose intent whose intent because the statute silent on who the th matters and the also recognize that there was very limited case law on this interpretation of intended to be fired from the shoulder it's not in stapled people talked generally about men's rights but it doesn't interpret intended to be fired from the the district court did consider mr kamali subjective intent but also considered the objective intent for the firearm i think in in the the specific instance when the a t f discuss firearms raised up to someone shoulder the a t f thought that this actually would create a short barrel rifle so what it was doing was saying look if you're trying to use something legal illegally then we illegal objectively illegal but the process person promises oh i'm only going to use it in a legal way i'm not going to put it up to my shoulder so i think there might be a distinction with respect to a t f i think the court of knowledge  an objective and subjective approach to it but i think the court looked and focused on the congressional intent and the plain language of the statute to find that intended to be fired from the shoulder with very much made to be shot from the shoulder and we we use the term it's a shoulder stock and a form bridge club you want to point that out i think it's also important important to point out that the district court client at the time again he was eighteen years old he is likely a child he was under the influence of alcohol the court may recall abuse that he was addicted to alcohol from an early age and so he was abusing alcohol d and you also had behavioral health issues so this was if anything a slip of the tongue more than what he was relying on that as a rifle he did not mean to fav that in fact if we go into trauma the other is the text messages or some of the other videos between mr kamali you can see that he's saying not only am i making this to be shot so so remember he's thinking he's talking to somebody purchasing a firearm even if it was self incriminating he just says a rifle and then clarifies it and i asked the court again to consider he was under the influence of eighteen years old and he had behavioral health issues he then goes on to clarify that it was raining and what it was made for what it would resign for and it was made to be shot from the hole and even if we look at this self incrimination i've asked the court to consider some of the other discussion between him and the agent and you could see if you can write it so he's saying things that are both full he's doing those things but here's specifically you don't recall that a rifle and he made that mistake once but then he cleaned it up clarified it and informed the agent that it was for brace and not to be shot from th