the court needs to be able to are chiefly new objective evidence which would justify a harsher sentence but in this it's the court considered the same precentor the stak nearly identical to the allocution he provided in the original sentence where he also apologized for his criminal history court consider the issue at hand this record is a little bit different because the court did consider that what it was doing with creating a longer when it originally imposed the new sentence it imposed sea mines and granted consecutive order of repetition the court says i don't know what happened there amendments but in order to but a presumption that attaches there needs to be no objective evidence of that or who figures and articulates so yeah you may well be you made will be right in terms of you know the contemporaneous objection and normally we say well that alerts the court if there's a problem judge has a chance to fix it it cetera but it's striking him a it may or may not also make a difference in what we do with the case but when it shifted from concurrent to consecutive is hard for me to see where top counsel but i think in so my question is whether you know there was a strategic reason for not objecting to the consecutive that would have triggered some kind of lurch to the judge which arguably matter fix the whole thing then we wouldn't be here now was so was there a strategic reason if not you can just you know say nah case is that what the district court does is it essentially open up and modified that separate an appeals order so if you look at the docket in these separate cases we have to find all but this case i  practical problem and i think that when we speak to what counsel does or does not do we lose sight of the fact that this is a consequence o the defendant in the shape of excessive imprisonment and i mean your point your point is well taken but i'm just old school you know the judge was obviously  can we know understand your ruling but we have jag it does have more than just cosmetic of bringing the judge's attention hoopes you know i've done consecutive verse conserves so if the judge is want to corrected there then we wouldn't be here now so i'm i'm just saying to me it's not a cosmetic one deal to object when there's a basis for it even if the judge keeps moving but where here she's most of those she's upset about it being there she says all this stuff so argued she's not folk in a way that's just i hear you but to me objecting brings to the attention of of you know the judge there not have the same thing from ms blatt on the other side you know same deal judges don't like to get in trouble in expect lawyers to point out you know if you know you sure you want to do this and there's a respectful way to do that thing away keep going consecutive i'm not real sure what happened to the revocation of supervised release then it's pointed out to her that on revocation it was twenty four months and who writes and the court says and that would have been we have record evidence but it's very intentional that she's running a sixty seven dollars dawn re man to twenty four months totaling eighty four months a year or longer than the original sentence under a substantially higher but erroneous guideline range so i have to believe that the the core intentionally did it but that runs directly in conflict with the court's precedents let alone supreme court new evidence to to afford any explanation for why that would be other than winning on appeal in the st instance and that's the sort of are several options i think i think the simplest is to simply be the consecutive relationship leaving all of us saying i also think an appropriate remedy would be to  man to a different judge i have not run across to answer your specific question but the court must do that but i do you think human interest and judicial economy and fairness either davidson has just argued is quite different from that which occurred at recess at the regional sentencing because here for the st time district court hears that kanada has not only refused to acknowledge the instant offense even as a criminal act but also that his other programs were essentially not his fault and that conversation takes place immediately after the court had confirmed that no it's not that the district court didn't know the criminal history but the district court had no idea of not us attitude toward his own prior convictions and that is directly related to the three thousand five hundred and thirty eight analysis which  he just reported does have to do and which the district court in its statement of reasons in this case said it was a lying upon to increase the sentence because this report never said because because of your your well i think those are all fair inference is that can be drawn from this record precisely because the court did say that each detail of the criminal criminal history in the way that he and also that  was considered that the newly calculated sentencing range was too low and the reason why i'm concerned was because the defendant had committed instance and slumpy was on supervised release where the presence of thing with your view big knowledge that the government has the burden and so your going to us that you can satisfy their burden through stringing together inferences i mean that doesn't seem consistent in north carolina versus peers the court initially the person acknowledged their culpability for the instant crime and now is back in our view saying now because of the instant crime but because the stuff in the prior criminal history i mean that sinise to me to even string it even more of it in i know you got to make an argument but that seems to not really give the government much of a burden if all you need to do is string together some inferences to rebut a presumption where the case all clearly say is objective something in the record well we would still maintain that the that the evidence here that the district court heard with regard to the  don't need an inference for that so how do we get from her attitude about having to do it again and to string together the emphasis is you the government rebut the presumption by look the objective evidence you're right brad she could have taken all that into account and if she had it or rated that as the reason then it may be like a lot of these cases we get where we say ok the judge has sufficiently put objective one million iraqis are the reasons for it and even though it is a year or more we say the record says we've got several cases like that more than another one that i wrote where the defendant argued more but the judge but death the case so a mob bush to you is to distinguish this case from those cases where we have said the presumption is rebut it because of objective evidence in the record or the district court's statements of reasons why versus some where there is no such and we're left to infer inferences as to why a year longer  what the defendant said with regard to his attitude toward his prior convictions was very compelling for the district court let me ask you notice gaggia argument what's your best judge stewart's question yes what is the best case where our court said we can infer reasons why the court might have wanted a higher sentence on remained and that's in and that rebutted the presumption as concurrent and that that judgment still out there as far as i understand now we have the judgment in this case the main the new case let's call it that now says they want consecutive so of europe to be zero p and i think that's where they calculate you know th actually how much time you're going to serve you've got to basically conflicting judgments how does how do they reconcile that well i can i can say this st of all the  judgment which is silent in the criminal case about anything having to do with the anything having to do with the concurrency or consecutive  original judgment then the revocation sentence is imposed then the criminal judgment is entirely vacated by this court which it which is why there is no guile ation of the mandate because there was no  no judgment by the time he got back to the court on remain and then the court imposes a new judgment which says ok in this judgement i'm going to make this judgement consecutive to position of the let's assume that we hold that even with the plane era standard that presumption has not been rebutted by objective evidence and we're discussing you know relieve the coun and put it back to square one in you know everybody would have to be in place again i know that's not what years ago knowledge i mean you know want to happen i'm just asking you if we were to get to that place on the government standpoint would dad work as opposed to think we're got a single judge set up so if we assign it somebody else got be in another division no ed i guess but anyway what's your response of that you know did you hear me no no no i didn't hear you and i'm just i'm just thinking i think in this circumstance you know the court the government's position would be to leave this leave that to do it's question of this court and would actually in a strange way create kind of a conflict between the peers and and the mandate will itself because there was no there was no regional about the way the evidence what we believe to be the newly discovered so to speak evidence came in through the port but i think that there is a fair inference that can be drawn from both the district your you know position i understand i certainly didn't want to do interpret my question is getting you take knowledge or can see you know that we ought to do anything other than affirm from your standpoint so i'm not very i'm just saying assuming argue window if we were to get to that space the government has to be as concerned is we are that everything is done correctly and so we don't want to complicate an already complex matter by doing something that well i won't say illegal but you know it creates more issues especially the point judge costa has raised with that in focus of about the duality of these you know where the cases and that kind of stuff so on the one hand just say vacate consecutive but then there are these unintended consequences of doing it so i was asking the government bori you know from the standpoint you still be the one in there trying to explain all this so there's just know shot to make sure we don't mess up and she says you have given them it would appear to me that and that eliminating the consecutive sentence consecutive nature of the judgment  would be the cleanest lady doing all right thank you candy it is always appreciated you know that and decided in the back ground relationship a sentence armenian even though it starts with a new guideline a new sentencing process still goes back and fits in have this internal conflict that has set up between the judgments that district court's rejection