trouble light touch tom in the sense that he can't stand your client comes and looks like he has no chance for credit for time served ok let's hurry up and grab that because i know i've got a long record and put it  st day with judge benito's when he said i'm not really liken this to my foot well put it over a day and then they still don't pull the plug you know he still had a chance to say ah well now that i know that i'm not going to get  that i'm not going to get credit for time served i think maybe i should get a report and you're quite never pull the plug on this and it goes over to it gets pulled over twice and now you want us to say that somehow you once again if your client is the bad not the ball and started the whole conversation about it and everyone we don't have to go that far back to know that we were all talking about coded every day how your client started the whole thing and this is the transcript of the nd sentencing proceeding and he makes a very clear that he is not imposing sentence as a result of any discussion here regarding covert nineteen eleven number two he talks about respect for the law number three talks about protection for the public and there's certain judge kalahandi indicated earlier he talks about the fact that page one  some industry of california that we're just trying to move people through the system it sounds even though we don't know very much about him when we cut these deals is that what happened so your honor i don't have a perfect answer for you i don't know the exact of the outbreak of covert floods as i recall at the time there was a large number of illegal entrants that were massing at the border and we were rushing a lot of additional border patrol resources on the fry and the flow of illegal aliens angry so that again that's my general understanding of how things were going in the office and it's a perfectly of course those it's normal sentencing practice is to impose a sentence higher than the ones that failed to deter with the defendant from committing the same offense in the past and of course  also address the other points you made so the court did mention prior changes that it had decided in the past now that's not traditionally what we would think of as outside information you know there's no study or articles of points to yeah but is there anything improper in a sentencing judge looking at the entire criminal history particularly recognizing that this is already illegal reentry that this defendant has been convicted of looking at the last sentence that was imposed on him for illegal reentry and saying look it's my general practice to give a higher sentence where it's clear to me that tha question mark this defendant has been convicted of illegal re entry and then he looks at what he got the last time which was six months and just from a deterrent standpoint it's clear to me that six months was not enough to deter this guy so i'm going to sentence him higher than six months because of the fact that that sentence was not determines years again committing the same offense for the  and i believe that completes our calendar for today this court will tomorrow morning and i think calendar i'm on tomorrow morning starts at