hearing sentencing hearing the factors to consider are substantial assistance which is found within the rule thirty five and the general sentencing factors which are found in thirty five fifty three which are defendants participation in the crime the facts and circumstances of the crime itself defendant history those types of things and you're showing those weren't considered it does not appear to be no on october twelfth when the court issued its ruling if there was nothing within the transcript nothing said about those factors by the district court judge all he said was that he thought it was appropriate that the defendant should receive a life sentence and therefore came up with some until mortality to be able to reach that end instead of by so if i do it silently it's ok but what if if i tell everybody that i'm thinking statistically this man has x years to live that's wrong case its interactions with the defendant its knowledge of the defendant substantial assistance its knowledge of the defendant's role within the case and all the other thirty five fifty three factors and the government's interaction with the victim's using a statistic a statistical analysis that is not applicable to this defendant when it's fashioning their sentence so if he does purpose what you according to what he said was to allow the defendant only a small amount of time he is your now your honor and even in an environment now that is not applicable to that statistic he is now in prison where in prison it's a completely different situation fifty one death one through fifty one dash thirteen it's just crystal clear that the defendant waived his right to appeal this conviction and sentenced period while he bargained off the death penalty yes so know i think that's that's a very good question i try to cover it in a footnote in my believe them basically the government's position is this it was clear that there was a waiver of any right to appeal the defense sounds now that there we all remember that this was not an initial sensing area and i intend to answer the court's question i'm just going through a long analysis with the court's permission this was not the initial sentencing hearing that was a rather simple one everybody the court and both parties agreed that life was the appropriate sentence this was a motion to reduce the defendant's sentence for significant cooperation and after carefully analyzing what the appropriate sentence would be judged determine that well in my mind the correct sentence is life but i understand the government's position but i don't agree with them as to the extent of the reduction that they're recommending i want and this is just sh didn't he rather relied on mortality table and i gather it without giving the defendant a chance to say what's in a book i'm all wrong without create prior warning that that's what he was going to do and it may be th would be here or not that we wouldn't be here on this issue i can see that but i don't think the fact that he did say anything should should change matters it's just a mortality table that may not mortality table that basically when referring to the general public it is an accurate one so i would submit to the court that clearly if the the court had said anything below this issue wouldn't be here but even though it did the fact remains that the judge had a sentence in mind of almost life and he had to do something in fact he could of he could have referred to nothing and just gassed which i think would have been less to accurate than what he did but if he had just said i think he's going to live to be seventy and therefore i'm going to impose the following sentence so that he's released at age sixty six that wouldn't be reviewable and i don't think the court should be condemned for trying without trying to be repetitive of what i've just said and what's in my brief i think it's clear that the united states versus doe case premise that district court to consider factors other than the defense cooperation in ruling on a rule thirty five motion and that court in that case the district court just flat out denied the will thirty five motion and the court the endo considered the cooperation of the defendant but considered other factors under thirty five fifty three such as the nature of the drug trafficking conspiracy in that case the extent of the defense involvement and the large quantities of drugs that were involved and i submit that's what the judge of did here clearly when the record is examined and i'm talking about the full record there was a sentencing excuse me there was a rule thirty five hearing on october fifth and there was a rule thirty five hearing on october twelfth when judge judge said i can't decide this now  will continue it for a week so that i can make the decision it's clear that he was considering that considering the nature of this event it was a horrible offense two forty in the morning the house was torched and six people inside a nine year old girl dies  of the offense and the defendant's role in it as the court did and dull the court balance that as a clearly indicated on the at over twelve theory against the government's need to obtain cooperation and assistance from persons who commit crimes and while the judge will judge job and not see it as opinion that the defendant should be sense for why he did recognize the government's need to obtain assistance and recognizes the government's admitted the defendant in this case provided a tremendous amount of assistance factors that he could legally consider in regards to rule thirty five motion he reached his conclusion that the defendant should serve the vast majority of his life in prison i would submit that even though obviously the government disagreed below our recommendation  for thirty years on the other hand it's understandable to see where the court was coming from that it was a horrible crime that the judge did have significant knowledge having sat through a six week trial that one of the other arsonists in  guilty pleas from all the other individuals and he knew the facts of this case quite well and i would submit to the courts that the government had a disagreement as to the appropriate i'll call it a reward that offender should receive in his as g the government the courts the court's decision was was not unreasonable yet it was certainly something that was well thought out was well balanced considering the absolutely horrific nature of the crime in this case was not necessarily word do you draw that i spent most of december screening per se pro se appeals and they're all appealing their sentence and eighty percent of them had sign in this case and as i cited in my brief there's statistics that show an individual who spends twenty years in prison it takes sixteen years off their life therefore if the court monnet if that was his goal to allow the defendant to have a couple years of freedom at the end of his life he precluded that by imposing that sentence and finally the government also argued that all of the tax and circumstances of this case and that since this judge sat over the trial and was well aware of all the facts and circumstances of this case this must be what he was