she was sentence on march seventeenth this year she intruder plea a guilty plea for knowingly and without lawful authority producing a false identification document in violation of effectively changed because she was originally charged with aiding and abetting the working world charged with assisting mark karr bahal in the commission of transporting a minor child  my child being under the age of twelve cross state lines for the purposes of engaging in and a sexual act in this case it was the minor child was her young daughter t p i would be a front with the with the court this the facts as case are quite frankly are rather disturbing is a very despicable circumstance but getting to the actual issue within the sensing hearing miscue miss carter hall who had never been arrested didn't have any criminal history had never been convicted of anything here in united states she was when her first when the charges against her hearing information was presented on behalf of the fence or on mrs carr balls to have for mitigating factors to show that under the circumstances she was not an equal partner with was from the perspective of the defense and on what he can say on living on winning allies but an unwilling ally that she she was mitigation why why didn't she get help why didn't she prevent it why didn't she protect her young daughter t p and what was presented was information that quite honestly was even  undocumented undocumented immigrant because of that she has an issue with the language barrier and also being undocument she's culturally didn't grow up in the united states so she didn't grow up here and being used to certain freedoms and an opportunities that we take for granted as american citizens she grew up in a different environment and in addition to that she's also because she's undocumented fear of actually making that phone call for food individuals here in the group united states there is and there are some some cultural issues even here in united states as is an f american there's there's always some concerns with interacting with police but as an undocumented immigrant any authority there is there are some concerns and contacting them at the authorities and potential repercussions like deportation  however there is also not only of the spectrum as a willing or or on uncaring around feeling a parent or this was an individual who was deeply afraid of what we're mario kar and it was very intimidated and just a just a potential a couple quick points the issue in this case here in arguing that there was procedural error there that the court didn't give an explanation to why it rejected be the source of the defense of the mitigating factors if it's an issue of as an issue of credibility of the court is able look you know what i understand this this these are these assertions by your client that there is the mitigating factors i don't believe are the next one thing but that that was not expects claimed it was more so along the lines of you didn't protect your child which is true she did and she's definitely culpable in that regard but the issue is why didn't she protect her child as she should protector and that goes to the medicaid medication and also to it also goes to the with the reasonableness argument as well that was on a reasonable sentence won it because this is not a constant sentence it doesn't enjoy the presumption of respect and two because in light of maria carr all she's different from a lot of other cases where you've heard of these despicable acts regarding the abuse of young children for sexual purposes she she wasn't this she wasn't is this willing ready willing and able participant or or well participant this case or individual tried to help out she was someone who circumstances it allegedly in minack minack ation including that the defendant also was a victim of her long term boyfriend who abused a minor in this case the district court did not ignore that argument it addressed that argument head on it just did not agree with that it's the relevant discussion is at the sentencing transcript pages forty four forty five the district court says i recognize that she claims that she also was subject to emotional and physical abuse that does not explain the seven long years in which her daughter starting at the age of seven was abused by the long term boyfriend and the act of the scylla taishan and steps that the defendant t assist the defendant or or boyfriend in that abuse defense counsel attempts to portray the defendant as you know just turning a blind eye and not being a willing or active participant in this abuse and that's it that is not what the district court found at sentencing she took a number of steps over seven years including fleeing with her family over night when her boyfriend was about to be arrested for sexual abuse in virginia taking the kids out of school for many long years so that school officials would not be suspicious of the fact that her daughter was coming to school you know sexually abused not allowing her daughter to go back to school when she was impregnated by the boyfriend at the age of eleven getting her fake i d so that medical officials would not realize her young age when she was an eleven year old pregnant girl in texas all of these were active steps that the district court took into account it found that the circumstances in mitigation that were alleged by the defen were insufficient to overcome all of those aggravating circumstances the government has never alleged that the defendant is in the same position almario the hall has the boyfriend he was also charged in this case he faces a life sentence the five year sentence that the defendant received in this case is far shorter than the sentence he will receive and it makes this sentence very reasonable and the district court's treatment of the defense's arguments procedur sound if the court has no questions is going stanek what was the government's position i'm sorry what was the government's position at sentencing in this case we requested that statutory maximum of five years five years yes if the court has no reasonable in comparison to in light of the mitigation factors that was presented by maria are all that's that that's the big difference now with the court making the statement that the the claim mitigation there again there is if if the court was making the determination of credibility terminations as opposed to some kind of cryptic statement saying he well i don't believe you i don't believe that maria cardona i don't believe you i don't believe that you  this this unwilling of this abused spouse or domestic partner this intimidated being i don't believe i believe that you did it for the reasons you gave in mitigation i don't believe those those reasons what i really believe is that this is why  did it then that's one thing if that if that was a credibility issue the terminations were just of course in the best position to make that determination the district court didn't present that the district court presented a an actual  give full attention to the actual question the next question is why did you do you feel the judge should have needed additional incur mr mills well i feel that one the judge should've given a a better explanation as to again that the credibility issue it was a credibility issue or if it wasn't a credibility issue then why wasn't it a credibility issue because the many things the government about doesn't explain the undocumented immigrant there are a lot of issues that undocumented immigrants have to deal with every day that are not within the purview of a lot of us here who are born here united states and it's easy to ignore those very lead to mitigation as to why ms carbonell didn't act on didn't act to protect her daughter t p better based on her fear of authority and her fear of