recognized legal merit under khana she completely failed i believe in her cunningham duty the court made a rigid technical finding relying on strict interpretation of the discretionary guidelines explanation for rejecting the challenge particularly when she's not the policymaker she has to consider the challenge i mean certainly agree to that and the record has to make we hear it has to make that clear application of this particular guideline to him based on the fact that he had some very old minor drug convictions that if you look at it to the one point one will level six to level twelve offense not the kind of offenses that were contemplated with the three strikes and you're out a drug traffickers these were eight young man in his late teens early twenty's selling personal use quantities of controlled substances in order to get by but get the career offender hits if much of a practical difference i mean ultimately given that he would have been in the same  criminal history category with now and it's he would have been in a lower category by several point sharana and at sentencing i requested low end of that and seven and a half years the fact is that his source who is a major trafficker got forty eight months from the court and my client got one hundred twenty months and it really was unfair and part of it was this criminal record in the court never addressed that all that was based on old and minor convictions where the source presumably is dealing in large quantities to several people all the time so i think there's a distinction and this was not a character categorical challenge  sentencing hearing whether there were any specific objections to the center or to the conditions that since counsel had already mentioned and you know kills the flag his objection t application of the career offender guideline and she expressed he knew that she applied it because his criminal conduct justified the application and the argument at all which was or duty it was raised by memo it was raised in my arguments she didn't address it at all and at the end of the sentencing she did do with this court suggested but it was there any other issue haven't raised now i raised those arguments and she didn't address them and worried about any type of donna tele waiver or anything else i simply said what about the career of fender and i basically got a total logical response because all the conduct she talked about during the sentencing was the offense conduct it was already baked into the cake and all she said was because you know the sky is blue because the sky is blue he's a career offended because he has  the offenses and make him a technical career offender were such minor nature and so far in the past that they shouldn't be applied that's what the that the thrust of the objection is not that he wasn't technically a career offender and she refused to discuss it at all she never raised it where you said that the in even though the per us even though the prior convictions were for relatively minor offenses and not address it at all at the end just to avoid waiver i simply said what about it and she her answer does not elaborate it doesn't discuss it doesn't meet any of the conning ham obligations to to to either exercise and so show some exercise discretion all she said was yes because yes and that's that's what we object to and that's what i think is unfair and light of all the other arguments separation thank you ok thank you thank you  girl in the line of cases in order to avoid the cost in arguments a come up that the court hasn't addressed the defense arguments court at the end is there something more is there something that i've missed is there something you need clarification on or explanation and mr mandella said yes there is i want to know what's going on here and what she said was the record of the defendant provided that he was a career criminal and i'm obviously paraphrasing all this exact language because the record is indicating that's what it was she's indicating that she had a situation where he was dealing drugs an enormous amount she estimated that the amounts dealt were a very conservative estimate two point seven kilos he was lacked unemployment for several years which he felt indicated that he must have been dealing drugs to support offender these were trafficking offenses although the amounts were small in the offenses themselves they were trafficking offenses not not merely possession offenses and in terms of their age i mean one was in two thousand and eight  thousand and eleven these were ancient history by any means considering that his activities were taking place allegedly between two thousand and eleven and two thousand and thirteen the court in this case gave this court enough evidence to be assured that the court considered the defendant's arguments and that they addressed them there's really no error here of a procedural the government is incorrect in their analysis because judge crabb never discussed the prior convictions at all and i know what that's where you dropped the ball because when you ask why the court applied the career offender guidelines she's applied the career offender guidelines because mr result is criminal conduct just right in other words he was a career offender under the guidelines that was your few to say well i know that you know he's eligible for parole status but you know there's mitigating circumstances prior convictions means nothing so on but you didn't take that opportunity your honor i went into that and great depth but notwithstanding that when cheat her response was because of his criminal conduct that he should get lenient treatment because those early convictions that made them eligible for a career fender status were not that serious and you had a chance that was your last chance and i raised it again year on and she response she researched even though the prior convictions were for relatively minor offenses well they weren't so minor that they took him out of the defendant of the career offender category you're on when was convicted this case she never commented it really had on prior criminal convictions right and there were there were and she didn't address those a why she thought asked at the end of the any arguments you haven't raised and i raised all of those several times and she didn't address them if i had said nothing would i have a better appeal is it my fault because i said to her one last gasp but what about