that's like everybody's here  y please the court we assert to procedural sentencing errors in this case the st one is that the district court judge relied on speculation about the offense and mr griffin's personal characteristics by stating that mr griffin how do you have been up to something other than simply possessing a firearm by virtue of having around two thousand dollars just person at the time  suggested perhaps he was involved in drug dealing or that after some kind of illegal gambling there there was no objection correct and mr griffin really didn't want to  source of those funds well the information the presents report reflected that he was working cash jobs as an auto mechanic there's really no information the record suggesting that he was involved in drug dealing certainly there were a prior arrest related to that many years earlier but i thought he had prior convictions for he had a prior he had two prior convictions i think they were about five or six years earlier for drug drug distribution and possession with because the defendant had managed to avoid detection for his crime that there must have been other victims and similar here  bradley didn't object to that i guess speculation and the court this court the government on appeal argue that look they don't object it's forfeited and this court said said no question of did did he objects to it this court has often said that you know once the judge says something that the horse is kind of out of the barn and any any objection is is really actually an exception and exceptions are not only not that is necessarily follows but in taylor the court said that and i guess the speculation in taylor was that the defendant might have continued to  inception because this court's assessment of the very st factor for the nature and circumstances of the offense and history characteristics of the defendant rests on speculation rather than evidence bearing a sufficient condition for liability so i guess but we don't go through that exercise unless the the single line of transcript can reasonably be assumed to have had an independent decision and i don't see that conclusion flowing from th transcript the even if it was an hour and you know that the sentence did say that he worked cash jobs but it also said that his total monthly income was two thousand dollars a month a simply if the court gives explicit attention to to that fact and we submit that that's what's happened here but that wasn't the only error at the sentencing and the other procedural error that we submit occurred was the course failure to address a principal argument in mitigation and that was the fact that mr griffin participated in a significant amount of programming in the state prison facility after he'd been sensing argument for someone to make it to reaffirm that position last week in the chauffeur case that the government brought to the court's attention it's twenty eight j letter yesterday and you know it wasn't really disputed here that mr griffin completed a significant amount of programs the court didn't address any of that off that didn't give it short shrift it simply didn't address that i know the government says that it doesn't really matter because the sentence was below guidelines but this court's cases on the cunningham line of cases have never said that the court gets around having to address arguments by imposing a below guideline sentence there are certainly is i guess a understanding or maybe a reflection in a below guideline sentence sometimes at the court while it may not have specifically addressed an argument it has it has considered it but here the court i think gave some reasons for why it imposed a it below guideline judge often does he he indicated that the it's view that the guidelines didn't reflect the costs of incarceration and he also opined that perhaps mr griffin yes criminal history was was overstated some some policy disagreements with the guidelines here that that explained why the sentence was what it was here  inquiry is whether the district court considered these sentencing argue and it's impossible to take a look at the record in this case and walk away with the conclusion that it did i understand the tendency to on appeal look at a below guideline sentence and up really run of the mill gun case and assume that there wasn't a sentencing error certainly i guess a meaningful sentencing here  but forty two months it's not forty two years but it's not insignificant and the sentence despite the fact that it was below the guidelines could have been lowered could have been along the lines of the type of sense that the defense asked for  loaded it semi automatic firearm with an extended magazine and nearly two thousand dollars in cash for that conduct he received a sentence of a little more than half the bottom of the guidelines right it is undisputed that griffin had in the past repeatedly been arrested with large sums of cash and drugs and that he was subject to a condition of probation for hitting him from carrying more than one hundred dollars of cash on district courts observation that carrying a large sum of cash is consistent with criminal activity was reasonable mr griffin did not object to that statement at sentencing nor did he ever indicate that he had obtained that nearly two thousand dollars through working a cash job or through any particular means as judge sake's noted the p s r did document that griffin was working class jobs but his he estimated his overall monthly income is about two one thousand dollars so that doesn't necessarily scream out that the one thousand eight hundred and eighty seven dollars he was carrying on the day of his arrest came from a cash job because of that lack of objection or any  mr griffin relies does not say otherwise that's the rule about taking exception it says that quote exceptions to rulings or orders of the court are unnecessary but we are not talking about a not support it what bartlett says is quote the rules do not require a litigant to complain about a judicial choice after it has been made in their reply brief mr griffin has simply inserted in brackets the words or comment after the phrase judicial choice in bartlett that is not in fact what bartlett says instead the next paragraph of bartlett is actually much more applicable to this case says quote when the judge surprises counsel which is what mr griffin says happened it is far better to err and resolve the matter in the district court then to bypass available opportunities and see the issue for appeal and that reasoning is why the court in miller and just very similar situations applied plane air review to assess the district court's remark during sentencing when that remark had not been the source of any discussion or dispute during the hearing itself and that principle applies with special forces in cases such as this where the argument is that the judge relied on unreliable information because those are easier to assess those claims are easier to suss out in the district court if they are raised there the judge can clarify the chuch can backtrack and strike the judge can invite litigation if it's really truly an important factor to the court's sentencing sentencing the sentencing hearing is really the main event if there is something that we need to talk about we need to talk about it at sentencing in front of the district court judge so that judge can exercise his discretion on the spot and if that happened here we could have gone we could have addressed this issue explicitly discussed the source of the money if mr guppy had wanted to etc in any event ultimately the district court's observation was just common sense it was tailored to griffin's o history there was no effect on griffin substantial rights because there is absolutely no indication that this one passing sentence during the course of a thorough sentencing hearing made any difference to the bottom line case is not in any way similar to bradley or taylor which counsel has invoked in those cases the sentencing judge made very speculative remarks and based based on those remarks imposed sentences that were district court did address this issue be it briefly in a passage that seems to be ignored in mr griffin's briefs the district court acknowledged griffin's quote aspirations and goals but the court indicated that they did not outweigh the record that's before this court that argument was responsive to the rehabilitation point because the council's letter sentencing letter to the court counsel said essentially mr griffin ha pursued all this in jail rehabilitation and based on that he has aspirations and goals for when he gets out of prison he wants to work on cars etc and that is what the just report responded to albeit briefly but explicitly during the sentencing hearing those remarks were short but they conveyed the gist report's reasoning and they were part of the longer sentencing hearing in which the district court thoroughly explained mr griffin's below guideline sentence numerous decisions from this court most notably poets graham and davis have found no error in very similar circumstance the bottom line here is that the district court's reasoning needs to be sufficient for this court to understand why the district court imposed its sentence and needs to convey fairness and sentence and those ultimate goals were accomplished here with the thorough sentencing that led to a very low sentence ultimately