arguments number one the criminal history category doesn't change and also number two it's only an increase of five months i would like to address the sense in agreement itself if i may and everyone realizes and it's a good thing that the government doesn't stand in the shoes as a litigant as the defendant does defense counsel is always trying to get a short a sense of possible for his or her clients but the government does the but no greater than necessary sufficient to protect the public from future criminal conduct by the defendant and all these things are presented to the court every time they make a informed opinion by the government attorney here that just has to be considered when the court when the district court rejects the sentencing range like this this court in comparison in other cases has recognized the importance of district court providing reasons on the record for his or her sentencing decision and it's not just to provide a vehicle for appellate review it is also to promote idea of fairness in sentencing so we know the public is watching and we know that what the court says on the record is critical so i just want to direct the court's attention to a couple pages in the appendix seventy three and seventy four the court will find district court overruling of our objections the probation report and seventy nine appendix seventy nine gives the courts rationale as well as eighty one and why it did not accept this for one thing it seems to me that the argument that you're making is one that in general the government would probably like which is that you seem to be suggesting that one basis for our determining that the sentence was substantively and reasonable was that the court did not give adequate weight to the prosecution's purported view of what an appropriate sentence was do you really want us to announce that that is an appropriate factor in general but our point is that when the court is rejecting a sense of agreement it's not just a wish part of the defense i'm just trying to give it more context is all but i'm trying to get my mind around your argument that if it's an agreement from the parties you're suggesting that we ought to but the court at least one of the factors that we have to consider is whether the court rejected a recommendation from the parties and in rejecting a recommendation of the person the parties pontiff what's good for the goose is good for the gander right that the the government would be able to take an appeal and one of the factors they could lay out was to say well nobody ask discretion standard deferential standard but the court cannot just dispose of the agreements without having a sufficient record to do so i don't mean it really you're saying that parties agreement carry independent weight to the parties recommendation no judge i don't i get my only my only point is that even his abuse of discretion review the court has at least  i think the court receives information in determining a sentence that comes from different different areas and different sources and if the court considers something to be reasonable it can consider it i think i would leave it at that that i don't think it requires any extra then i understand your argument to have been that by spending so much time talking about whether the disorderly conduct convictions qualified for criminal history point the district court was somehow spending too much time thinking about issues that were relatively minor in the case and therefore we should conclude that by spending too much time talking about less relevant things the decision reached by the court was ultimately the reasonable  address it in this context and i'm sorry what is the error what does this gloss i assume there is no problem with the judge summarizing his overall view of a person's criminal history what is the gloss on nny conviction have some of those include is why always your education that were nine years before the sentencing date in federal court they were about a week apart and was an intervening arrest the court was correct in that regard came out in july our concern is that the individuals in the western district of new york they leave the sentencing proceeding not knowing what not to do so in other words i recognize describe this as an underwriter but our position is that permissive language in condition number twelve what it does is it says that we're going to do this very careful balancing under three thousand five hundred and fifty three and it's factor s we're not going to do it today we're going to go to some point in the future and a defendant leaves the court not knowing what to do we think that's a due process concern we think that's a notice concern and we frankly don't merits of your argument how should this court analyze whether the prior state disorderly conduct convictions or similar enough to the crime of conviction the merit application of criminal history points realize and i know the court does that there are a number number of subsection there so just because there is a connection of some sort at the initial charging stage to some sort of possession of controlled substances we believe that doesn't satisfy possession and connection with each of the five convictions judges i believe that are jackson that were filed previously to be sufficient in that regard i don't believe that we are conceding any issue in that  stanford's argument that criminal history points should not have been applied for his past sorely conduct convictions how should this court if you are inclined to do so i'm not saying that and we don't think that you need to get to that point in this particular case  position that this was a pattern of the court just glossing over the more serious and the last serious charges and also there was an agreement in place here that the court would consider i think that distinguishes it from those cases well individual's background and even a rough guide for understanding the person's character we believe based on the record particular on page seventy nine dollars that shows that the court was presuming the guidelines to be reasonable and that's why the sense was increased whether it's five years or