united states her sister a suggest that it is interesting to mr serrano this case comes down to just a couple of simple things was judgers are correct in the way she formulated the sentence in that i don't believe that she articulated the appropriate reasons for giving mr serrano the top of the guideline eighteen months as opposed to the six to twelve months that i suggested to her at the time and while she did in fact articulate the factors under thirty five fifty three a that she considered and certainly the guideline that she considered i don't believe that she was sufficiently specific with respect to why she imposed eighteen months rather than twelve and why twelve months was not sufficient under the circumstances what should she have sand and more why i think equally important what if we agree with you what should district court in the future imposing a sentence doesn't run into the procedural problems that you're suggesting or well i agree with you that there is no specific formula that the decisions of this court are very clear on said that you think is required in order for it to pass muster i think she needed to say look i've considered these factors under the guidelines i've considered the nature and nature of the of the offense and which in this case of course was violation of supervised release which is a little different consider the nature and circumstances of the offense years right and get over your first one all right what else well i agree that she said these are the factors that i've considered and i think that she that she did articulate i believe almost all of the thirty five fifty three a factors but i think she then needed to say look you've made an argument for twelve months based on mr serrano is history based on the fact that was the serrano had never prior to that this sentence spent any time in jail or even the original underlying crime which was a  mail fraud going back to two thousand and nine i think that this is but this i certainly understand your well articulated argument but in this case she's had experience with me with a defendant and much of what she's saying essentially is i bent over backwards from her point of view to give you a that's why you talk to young man ok this shit prevent you from doing this and you don't give hard it to your mother or sister or your father or anybody else in your family and especially to yourself the sentence should also protect the public from further crimes of the defendant and provide the defendant with the needed educational or vocational training medical care or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner restitution has already been taken care of in this case that being said it is the sentence of the court that you serve eighteen months of custody followed by three years of supervised release it seems that we're not in the position of second guessing the district court a malfeasance that was necessary to protect the public from potential future criminal conduct given the the prior  appropriate looking at the record on one ninety one ninety seven well i mean she clearly rejected the argument there's no question about that when she sentenced him to eighteen months but i'm not certain that she sufficiently articulated the reasons for giving him eighteen versus twelve particularly since i think that i advanced non frivolous arguments for the twelve months i think that it was incumbent upon the district court at that point to say look i understand your argument i get why you're asking for twelve months but i'm not going to give it to him and this is why and i don't think that that was sufficiently articulated i also think  think that my patient at least pretty clear implication the fact that she gave him eighteen months is and the reason she stated although i know you would like something more fulsome is at least in significant part  significant part not insecure and ate an articulation of why she did not impose twelve months well it was certainly an articulation that she didn't impose twelve months i'm not sure it was sufficiently let's say for sixteen months and she gave eighteen you'd be you're making the same argument i think if she gave sixteen if i asked for sixteen and she gave him eighteen i would have talked my client out of going forward with this appeal  because he's almost served he's done more than the twelve months as it is as of now so certainly i don't i do think it makes a difference the is the substantive difference between sixteen and eighteen but understand that i was understand that the one hundred percent for the probation violation is not a punishment for the underlying offense but it is a punishment for betraying trust and the trust of that was extended here was considerable it was look you've got a clean record you've got a good job background work history you're telling me you're clean and i'm going to give you a chance to demonstrate that then he comes in and commits a  crime by a preponderance of the evidence sufficient to establish a probation violation that the court says you know looks like this is not a first time at the rodeo if you're selling this much quantity of drugs so what am i to think you're not who you purported to be or not continuing to behave in a way that's appropriate now i would guess there's no particular science that would justify eighteen months rather than fifteen or rather than twelve but what she's saying is you did a very serious bad thing and you betrayed my trust and i think the only appropriate response to that is to go to this level i'm having trouble or saying well that's an adequate explanation there may be an argument substantive and reasonable news i'm not sure how that would work but it that at least would not be one that would be subject to play in error review because if you wanted more explanation you could you could have got up and said judge i i don't understand why i understand what you're saying about it's bad but i saw honest as not hear reason why twelve months isn't enough to accommodate that and i bet if you did that she would tell you i suspect you right well i still have a substantive argument here though that the eighteen months is substantively unreasonable that twelve months would have been sufficient under the circumstances given his history of the quote that the judge a judge has been made earlier where she spoke to was her speaking to his son not to him with respect to you know don't follow in your father's footsteps do the right thing i do believe that twelve months would have been a much more appropriate sentence and i think eighteen months was really overkill under the circumstances thank you you thank  court my name is turner buford to represent the united states in this appeal as well as in the proceedings before the district court we submit that the sentence imposed here is both procedurally and substantively reasonable transcript makes clear that the court appropriately considered the relevant factors at sentencing and far from overlooking the defendant's points we've actually addressed each one of them perhaps not in the order in which they're enumerated in the defendant's brief but certainly within the totality of the sentencing proceeding and while they may not of it while the court may not engaged in a specific with the defendant about why twelve months as opposed to eighteen certainly the eighteen months was amply justified by the court's comments at the hearing with respect to the substance of substance of the sentence we submit that the sentence within the guidelines was certainly within the bounds of acceptable it is your own but i think here it was it was justified by the findings the court made at that not only at the hearing but then reiterated at the sentencing proceeding which was as was was discussed earlier the circumstances surrounding the offense itself which was in and of itself significant also said suggested that this was not a one time thing for the defendant he was driving a car that he was registered in his own name but had not been reported to probation he had on him at the time of the offense and were four thousand dollars in cash which was four times what he had reported to probation as his monthly income and as the court noticed it was testified at that at the hearing by one of the n y p d detectives the amount of marijuana involved here was was well beyond anything that could have been used for personal use so this had all the trappings of a drug delivery service that the evidence suggests the defendant had been running for some time and which one of the detectives testified was common and manhattan area where the arrest took place for those reasons i think that the court amply gauged the magnitude of the breach of trust and delivered the sentence that she did i don't mean to minimize it but i think it's justified unless the court has questions the government's content to rest on its papers thank you papers and my argument is well thank you thank you very much your honour's thank you thank you both your arguments