procedure that the district court and let's follow when imposing sentences upon criminal defendants post walker the court must first the district court must first correctly calculate the applicable sentencing guideline range and the second step is to apply the factors a numerated in eighteen u s c section thirty five fifty three a here with regard to the second step which the court has asked that we address ourselves to the court the district court committed a clear error of law and the procedure it followed specifically the court failed to articulate and any meaningful manner it's consideration of the section thirty five fifty three  based upon his review of the pre sentence report the directions to the pre sentence report the government's response to the objections and the sentencing memorandum of the government's response that he was prepared to impose sentence and besides that reference to the sentencing memorandum there's nothing else referenced section referencing section thirty five fifty three a the district court never mentions his obligation under booker to consider section thirty five fifty three and in fact the district court never even says those words section thirty five fifty three day for the just recorded appeared to be business as usual under the guidelines and  s this court makes a very important statement which i think bears strongly on this case the judge did something completely different from what the judge did in mr carty scase there he discern the sentencing methodology that the district court ultimately applied and why it did so here we are not able to discern anything of that sort  especially here in this case what we have we can't even really do a reasonable news analysis because we have to first be satisfied or the court has to first be satisfied that the district court exercise if you flip that around let's say and  you assume that let's say for instance that the court had said what it said in this case i've reviewed the materials and based upon the my now rule that's essentially what he said it was very very limited said and let's say that instead the court had imposed the sentence significantly below the guidelines range i don't think the government would be satisfied that that was sufficient  is necessary and nobody is suggesting that however the positive of what the court said here reached the defendant without any clear understanding about what is pointed out it m morning your honor i'm kimberly herr from the district of arizona on behalf of the united states just addressing the next tuesday in that case what th court made clear that they must be the court must be able to determine what methodology is used at the district level and also consider that when it's a guideline sentence imposed or if the court the court has to make an factors the court didn't explicitly refer to thirty five fifty three but the stenting memorandum discusses at length thirty five fifty three a factors during the sentencing hearing they were discussed at length again the court was repeatedly advised of the advisory nature of the guidelines of the courts that he considered all of that stuff and imposed in a sentence and then imposed a guideline sentence the court chose to employ to follow and do the the s that the court followed in this case unlike mix was a guideline sentencing scheme and i think the next case is important it's important to point out some of the language in that case it's as whereas here the district court determines the guidelines do not adequately take account of thirty five fifty three a sentencing factors the district court may impose a sentence outside and at that time we look at the thirty five fifty three a factors determine whether  reasonable in this case the district court found that the sentencing guidelines adequately take took into account the thirty five fifty three a factors as evidence by him imposing a guidelines that despite the fact that he considered all of the arguments of coun in addition in the mix case that this court refers to the fact that not all cases will has significant thirty five fifty three eighty issues in them and in those cases th he did not mention any of the factors specifically nor did he mention thirty five i don't know what's on his mind because he told us that he considered the defendant sentencing memorandum which talks about thirty five fifty three that he considered the objections he ruled on the objections in that's the premise of mine question you're suggesting that so long as it's within guidelines a very summary nonspecific i've considered every argument and sort of the  know and how those got weight or why the rejection is due why thirty five fifty three a argument was accepted or rejected is we don't know we just assume that there was some reason but the government's ok with that even if it's on the short end of the stick as to what the guidelines sentence actually comes out so what you would like presumably under max's counsel positive if there'd been a downward departure here below guidelines the government would argue that what he did here was and looking at those factors to determine whether or not the sentence was reasonable i believe that degree of deference and with a review of the court because all we know is what objective evidence is presented we don't know who's or her reasoning so you're but i believe that the court by saying imposing a guideline sense in this case told this court that he believed that the thirty five fifty three factors were adequately taken into account by the guidelines in light of everything that was presented in that that was reasonable and i'd ask that even considered it from what he said