also represented the government in a district court blow it is your court abused its discretion when it sentenced defendant happily caesar to just forty eight months in prison and eighty seven percent barrett below the low end of the guidelines range for two separately committed and charge defense providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization and later while in pre sentence release obstructing the investigation of her efforts to recontact supporters of that foreign terrorist organization it is your core committed t demonstrating the need for the sentence imposed to promote the other three statutory purposes of sentencing retribution incapacitation deterrents the resulting sentence was well outside the range of permissible decisions and shockingly low and i'll nevertheless concluded that he considered whether any additional treatment in prison it seriously questioned whether any additional term of imprisonment was warranted and it did so because it was uniquely focus on the district court's assessment of and there's a very least significant tension i think that the district court ultimately the reason why it determined not to put cesar into prison for longer was because it was concerned based on the testimony provided by caesar's expert that additional incarceration would harm her mental state and that if that factor is somewhat different then as causing her to cease being a supporter of isis certainly this report found that there were the programs available that would cause her to end her support for isis and that's why i found that essentially she would be a continuing danger to united states but what it was primarily concerned with an imposing sentence was the risk of harm to the defendant herself and that in the cons in the good polity of the circumstances and considering the significant powerful aggravating factors which include the fact that in the st instance she was convicted of a terrorism  connecting aspiring troops to bona fide isis members and that she herself had attempted to troubled isis that was is not that is not a factor that could have borne that weight in the sentencing in houses but she wasn't convicted of just providing material support she was also convicted of violating parole operational agreement with the government of violating the terms of her pre sentence release and deleting communications with others and inviting others to leave those communications to conceal her committing material support offense and in the process she deceived she also deceived that you experts who testified based on the me i can i probably get what you're saying you're referring to the rehabilitation program but if there were in fact think hypothetically the existence of a rehabilitation program that was effective to achieve the result the district court wanted to achieve in this case could make it more reasonable for the district court  to consider the rehabilitated factors significant in the sense you know houses but i still think that in light of the other statutory purposes of sentencing the way the district court permissibly placed on that factor  argument on the need for the sentence imposed provide for just punishment reflect the seriousness of the fence to serve as a warning to others who would consider supporting foreign terrorist organizations and to prevent the defendant from committing for their crimes and that's particularly on this record because the defendants meet as far as the government can tell among terrorism defendants and that she had already committed a new serious criminal conduct one pre sentence release and she did so despite the fact that it violated a cooperation agreement she did so this by fact that violated the court ordered conditions of release and she did so despite that carone council's admission during her bail hearing that he would speak volumes at sentencing and yet the district court gave him that that sent typically not cases that we are reversing or substantive on reasonable something about terrorism that makes a difference yes you are i mean as this court recognized recently a moonie terrorism crimes are different and the fact that the terrorism enhancement reflects congresses and sentencing commissions consider judgment that a bit more severe punishment is required because of the unique risks of terrorism defendants the difficulty up preventing them from reoffend and as a congress could when congress enacted the terrorist financing or directed the sentencing commission to an act of terrorism mansmann the terrorism enhancement was actually mandatory it was corny it was it when the guidelines were mandatory so at the time the congress enacted it the congress had every reason to on several circumstances it relied on this is or is history in characteristics specifically her lifetime of severe sexual and physical abuse and the post traumatic stress disorder that that caused and that motivated her conduct it rely on the fact the testimony of experts that it was that that condition psychiatric condition that she had not ideology that was the underlying cause of her conduct it relied on her need for intensive trauma therapy it could not be provided in a prison and the expert testimony that her condition was highly treatable and would respond at trauma expert an expert who would tell who had treated hundreds of trauma victims an actual practice that was testified to at the hearing which was that daisy khan who runs an organization of for good muslim women and trying to make muslim women a positive effective voice in the world  for her to take mrs or under her wing when she was released and for her to obtain therapy upon her release and miss kahn is doing that i mean right now so there's also testimony from misconduct she doesn't she's in constant contact with daisy khan and she's been offered an internship to work for days a concert in his asian she's waiting for a software monitoring software to be proud laptop because everything's virtual she needs a laptop to do this work so her computer is with basis she initiated contact voluntarily she's constantly sending in i do this what should i do sending him otoh is that what she's doing her baking and things like that she is waiting for the internship she's been actively seeking a job i understand that it's a it's an extremely positive thing to do for her as a human being as a prisoner and so on and so forth but why does that possibly act as a deterrent to somebody else who's thinking of it of the same kind of behavior if i'm i'm not trying to at all be tongue in cheek but but this is the best her committing these crimes is the best thing that's ever happened to her how how does that deter me if i'm somebody else trying to decide whether i'm going to gauge in that sort of active well you know end of the court was focused mainly on protection of the public and specific deterrents which it did address  to send a general deterrence message this is a highly unusual case and this is what the supreme court is that an individual i said let me my question did you go on please but but my question is what the extent to which the sentencing judge took general deterrents into account not whether he's right or wrong but but the extent extent to which he folded that into the mix and in doing the was in the concept of just punishment which he didn't consider it could considered and discussed the seriousness of the offense the need to ensure a specific deterrence and just punishment and it specifically determined this is th forty six the special appendix forty six and forty eight it determined that her offenses were very serious and for this reason despite her tragic history and by the way her tragic history was the intense focus of the hearing and the government kind gloss over that but that's was a principal justification for the sentence but despite her tragic history and traumatic causes of her conduct further incarceration was necessary just as hunnish meant as what the government called rest retribution and that includes general deterrence and that's the defense side time served which was more than the sentence would have gotten if she hadn't violated her bail conditions and judge weinstein rejected that and said no sentence in the st instance and this is that this is again on the record as government appendix for sixteen must ensure that the public is protected and the defendant is adequately punished if found after hearing from five experts th was low if she got intensive therapy because her conduct was based on severe trauma caused by years of abuse but it rejected the argument that no further incarceration was necessary and capture prison for longer basically her support network fell down on the job her or her psychiatrist was a way she couldn't she trying to obtain therapy she went to a clinic she was put on a waiting list she had no support her mother had just died and she was in jail she had literally no one and she she didn't but i laid her ankle bracelet you know she she got on facebook she she had she had she had no one she had no support she had no job and she you know she got back facilitate travel from the united states to a broad no not when she was not released no and there was no claim that she resumed or attempted to resume support for the only crime she committed here and that's why much you know violating her bail conditions isn't a crime it's you know it's bad behavior but it's not a crime the only crime here was that she obstructed justice by lying about it she when she had to turn in she turned in her laptop and that's how they the a couple of them i think one of them and initiated and asked her whether whether it was her and she said yes it's i'm gnutella but she didn't agree with them she didn't support isis she said to the contrary to  used to be with isis she did you know deny it to some people that she done anything wrong and said she was snitched on she didn't want to reveal that she was cooperating and you know the government makes the claim that one of these people she  for operation and i said yes a thirty one and i asked the court just in that statement it's totally unclear what she is saying you know she's saying they want to maine for nation to let me out but i'm not going back there and and you know she's basically saying i'm not going back to jail for anyone i'm on the down low it sounds as much like she's saying i'm john i'm not you know more like she's saying i'm done with this i'm not associated anymore she certainly doesn't offer any support and the government could claim that if they did they would have check charge her with something they got they got the they recovered deleted post that's the only reason they have them they got them from facebook so you know there was no claim that there was something else going on here she she behaved badly and she was severely she paid for that she was punished she was immediately ran remand and she lost her cooperation agreement and her five k which she would have been out already way before that she had to plead guilty to another felony which dramatically increased her maximum ineffective guidelines range as i might rent was kept it twenty years before the obstruction but for the actual offense of material support so i mean she what she was she paid for the bat you know in the court  decided the court definitely considered everything every every factor and decided that her history of abuse which was the cause of this and the treatment that she needed the testimony that with treatment she wouldn't reaffirm and supreme court individual i sentencing and in this case was the absolute extreme in fact dr porter felt testified whose whole business is trauma therapy that this the level of abuse in this case was astonishing even to her all of that was available this time around well yes this is from st of all dr porter feel it now is that she dropped the ball and that she was unavailable for a period of time and the defense lawyers admitted that they they thought she would do fine they didn't realize how much support she needed nobody knew how much support she needed at the time they thought she would be ok they are promised very different regime in the future and they found this con this con entered the picture and this time it's actually a made mistakes were recognized and those mistakes aren't being repeated she is really surrounded she's got the social worker at federal defenders constantly monitoring her she she's got two to psychiatrists or psychologists and her defense lawyers are constantly on top of her in addition to this congress now but she's going to be working with so and judge weinstein impose eight years of supervised release she is going to be under the supervision of the court for eight years her communications that were conducted in a manner that we could collect through search warrants but many of her communications were conducted using a medium based book messenger in which able to actually obtain the messages that she's exchange for the and so one of the things that we argued extensively in the district court is we can't be sure what she was doing when she was recontacted nice supporters one of the people that she contacted we later recovered evidence that she engaged in a forty minute voice call and we don't know what she said or what she talked about personal time but we shouldn't have to be in doubt the whole purpose of the conditions of release was to prevent that and doing exactly that and she in fact just fifty days on presents released  it's one of the other questions that's been raised is is who is to blame for her conduct while on presents release the defense has repeatedly insisted that the defense violations of her are conditions of release were because her and apparently the defense the defendant's recovery from jihadism is so tenuous that even when her psychiatrist goes on vacation for two beaks that she will immediately snap back and resume contacted by supporters that's an indication that a much longer sentence is necessary but you know i have to respond to some of the points that miss cassidy made about what's going on now this isn't in the record but the defend is living in the same place that she was living when she committed the obstruction fans she is the support network is exactly the same it's dr porterfield and it's misconduct but i only know that because miscast he said so the probation department isn't court needing any of that contact when we talk to probation department they don't know what she's doing with misconduct or with dr porterfield the the mental health treatment she's receiving is one hour virtually every week and that is essentially what we know about what's going on right now so i i we are repeating the mistakes of the past she's living in the same location and that was the location that daisy khon attributed for her problems and this is  and eighty five of the general end accts miss concept so we ended up sending her to another safe house that was a mistake because she was allowed to go into a community that was not her it was not relevant st at u h and that's the same community that she's in today so there hasn't been a change there isn't a comprehensive plan to prevent her from doing the same things she did when she was on presents release and a significant sentence was warranted it is warranted to both deter other criminal conduct from those