ecuador to make a new life and to seek medical treatment up until this offense he had led a law abiding life and for greed probably to summarize it best that he got involved in just armored car robbery he was the inside guy what is unusual about this case is after a week his convictions were affirmed and he went back for resetting thing up but at that point here deny any involvement offense but once he realized his convictions were final and that was going to be and he thrust up he made peace with this family and he asked he basically except that his role in the act and he said as much to the district judge big we did not ask for post conviction except his responsibility and probably in hindsight in light of booker we modern china shoot for that responsibility is that at the time that the case was being sentenced the the impact of booker was being thought and we weren't sure how it was going to get resolved and whether even the standard practice of doing motion for down departures was the right avenue to pursue and to getting a sense in lieu of that we chose to ask for a stay under thirty five fifty three factors asked for a ten year sentence that was the bottom line sentence that we were asking for believe so he unfortunately does not have any the only information he could probably provide is where the money is going to go where the money unfortunately he knows and we passed information as best as we know we know that the two co defendant the last ones to keep that and the ringleader we call him the ring leader michael he probably had the best access to him there's a price approximately of the one point two million dollars or taken six hundred thousand dollars still missing  ot seven year sentence for cooperation and he also got the biggest take of the financial the robbery and that's all he got and in the end he eventually got nothing and it was a twenty four year old guy looking at a substantial sentence i mean if he's lucky with good time he'll get out when he's about thirty and thirty eight and a half and that's what i mean i'm over forty now i but despite the problem with you you didn't accept responsibility right that is correct he just he had i think goes back to his personal traits and personal relation with his maternal grandfather and his mother that he could don't see this often when people who go to trial always maintain their innocence he came to terms that he accepted his role and in order to get to the ten year send we still would because the guy like calculation does impact mr gabler sentence we object to certain relevant factors that we thought we had a legitimate basis for and that's what the appeal is substantially about and that had to deal with the bodily injury enhancement for that was stuff or to the his partner at the time mr hutchinson and the only basis that the district judge found him to be for to bodily injury enhanced it was a scratch laceration in the back of the head i believe it was on the left side and it was either for a blow for me there or a gun numbness and is one of the dumbest from across the year assuming that is the case the district judge did not use that as factors and that what the district judge used was the scratch to the back of the head and it was and when could have a double dipping argument but we were not able to make we never made that argument objection because we thought that was not going to be used for testimony after he was found with the with the flex cuffs that he basically  and hit on the back of the head with what i presume was the butt of a pistol that he was slammed to the floor of the steel floor of the armored car his chin on the floor and so there was more than just the cut on the back of the head from the butt of the pistol the there was more injuries but even but i guess it goes back to again what the district judge just if they just district judge what he used you know the chin injury was aware of the circumstances as to how the robbery was conducted and included with regard to mr hutchinson some pretty brutal that ultimately ended up injuring him in three places on  different issue but what district judge judge mcnamee did was i'm going in there the injury to the back of the head was obviously painful and he made certain conclusions like there was a blood splatter there's no evidence there was a blood splatter the blood was found judge whether any of jackson's statements to be factual statements in the in the pre sentence report regarding the injury sustained by mr hutchinson i can't recall a judge i know i objected to body injury i believe the only basis what happened judge i mean if you look at the reichert i guess to be candid there may be an email to make a reasonable inference that the judge could have found those in this particular case he didn't and i think unless he does the initial matters that the finding addressed this particular defendant was given the opportunity to cooperate the day of his arrest we personally met with him and his defense counsel and basically begged him to consider cooperating because at that point in time we didn't know who the other four robbers were chose to not accept that offer additionally on the eve of trial at the request of the f b i again spoke personally with the defendant and asked him if there was any way that we could resolve this case short of trial so that he would not suffer the consequences that he did in this case he began and rejected that offer so we ultimately went to trial yes trying to do the fairly har played but didn't cooperate the three defendants who pled to didn't cooperate they all played to the hobbs act robbery but the government agreed to dismiss the one twenty four c the consecutive count each one of those three individuals were far less culpable then the defendant in this case in terms of their roles in the investigation but for the defendants participation in this case as they were in the roles of the crime yes your honor and also all three of those  when you look at like let's say vs his entire role in the case was basically to help unload the armored car that's all he did matthews his role was he drove the getaway van offered up his business  meeting place and help disperse the money that's all he did ask or a no or i think we should make approximately i believe it between thirty and fifty thousand dollars got one twenty seven vs says got ninety seven and the third laberge whose name just escaped me thought that not the one twenty seven was mandatory it's always managed to mandatory except the one unique situation where the government makes a motion for downward departure based on substantial set of systems based upon the statute in the guidelines the court then has the authority to  down below the statutory minimum under nine twenty four see that that's my i'm aware of that that's the only way a court can get down below the statutory minimum sin one twenty four see  mr what happened in a robbery is the messenger the victim goes out to a home depot the defendant mr gabe or allows two robbers into the vehicle moves the hides in the front help bag up the money for the getaway van that's pretty much all he did make one of the primary well when you look at when you look at our briefing and look in terms of what the defendant did in this case the defendant basically been through his training through the armored car company came up with the idea of coming up with a scenario where the driver inadvertently let somebody in the vehicle that looks like an armored car employee told them all about the doors told them all about the route told them about the money in the vehicle set up the armored car vehicle such that it would facilitate the robbery did many many things along a period of time that basically facilitate this robbery and it's mr mussa testified when you look at all guilty the government would have agreed to dismiss the one thousand foresee i mean and then he would have been looking at approximately now under this scenario approximately one hundred twenty five months which would have put him in line with the other defendants   case cited by the government capernaum states when you have individuals that are ultimately convicted of different offenses it's like apples and oranges in other words the three individuals that got the less time trial or you're not going to trial i mean as the court well knows less over well over ninety five percent of our cases police and if you really lemonade the downside for going to trial then what forty fifty sixty seventy eighty ninety percent of our case is going to  had the victim from behind the court found that it was a blood spatter and that in the blood shown on the shirt was there were little dots of blood in other words that blood got there from impact from being hit behind with such force that the blood spattered on  was sure there was no transfer after that because immediately after the guns were put to his head i heard was put on mr hutchinson with the zip tie and that hood never came off so there was no possibility for a transfer because when the when the robbers left the vehicle mr hutchinson was still hooded and with respect to injuries i would note that the court the defendant objected to paragraph sixteen which laid out the injuries that were discussed and and that the court did not sustain the defendant's objection and when the court talks about injuries the court uses the term injuries it didn't he didn't limit his statement to just the injury of the head the courts that's helpful times in the plural because of the victim's injuries he was applying the particular enhancement so you could have run out of time thank you have would be that joey mess here or no who did it mr hutchison play a lot more active role then what the government characterizes his role as in the offense as to judge mcnamee finding regarding injuries if you look at the sensing transcript he talks only about