you know the statutory maximum must be submitted to the jury improve reasonable doubt otherwise it's unconstitutional thrust on the primary reason in fact the sole reason that they held that that was unconstitutional not do that was because it was binding and mandatory on the court and that reasoning applies to three minimum sentences that reasoning applies to this case and that's why  criminal she was argument is that she was entitled to due process under the mandatory minimum sentencing scheme congress clearly did not consider or provide did use the gun and who did perform the robberies got a twenty five year sentence ultimately or something like that ultimately he got to rule thirty five motion which would be creased his  because she was suffering from a mental illness or to life personality disorder which the evidence at the sentencing hearing was going to be more severe than schizophrenia then she this mandatory minimum sentence under thirty five fifty one under the itself is otherwise provided languages thirty five to one and thereby completely a state or not have to utilize or not allow imagine that anybody would take these facts in these circumstances one hundred fifty nine you sentence is a reasonable sentence and i think that it is a short thirty five fifty three factors when sentencing mary and i think that's problematic congress did not provide for that they didn't see this situation sentence shall not be greater than necessary that is sufficient to not be greater than necessary is the language that is the saving grace of that in the district judge is the only determine make the determination of whether the sentence is vision not greater than necessary but when a prosecutor makes the charging decision as he did in this case the judge nobody can i have six minutes left all first issues that counsel raises regarding the aiding and abetting pictured in theory i would like to discuss the facts very briefly regarding the role and the expanse primary and hungerford set forth in our brief she was somewhat person the store although we had the testimony of can't this thing was charged this indictment was charged fast you can feel and ask the hungerford and it was during this process which canfield himself pled guilty and agreed to cooperate see by the results of the jackpot because you know she it's this is in may two thousand and two the detectives in the billings police department look at the video in the jackpot and they said you know that woman and they see a make a phone call they make a phone down they get her phone records they actually make a call to marion hungerford because they want to discuss with her this college she me and she consciously with her co defendants that the cops may be on to us in essence so what happens he brought the proceeds back in one of the interesting things that occurred is after marion hungerford after the robbery very wonderful met with a detective about the home calls and she set up the story with her young daughter the cops ask y i was calling you well in essence after canfield pled guilty we found that she was calling canfield's in the coast is clear i mean she said this entire enterprise in ordination so that she's going to keep herself out of it not in the in the videos and the longer but what happens just by pure happenstance and you like him the detective that had previously talked to her had looked at her phone call that she was in the clear this is the billings clinic she's getting an allergy shot she's doing something else but she's with cancer the detective describes it she turned like like a ghost because all of a sudden mr canfield the actual robber and the detective saw how they had distinctive walk and a pot belly had long hair and act like the string of robberies leaving the state to cover our tracks and that's what they did they left in they were arrested on july twenty seventh that probably didn't go right they drove round casing the place she went back to the hotel he went and convictions were going to be had how strong the group was certainly mr can feel like building a much stronger each one of the each one of the counts in which they allege unconstitutional had nothing to do with the prosecution they were all found got reasonable doubt by the jury the legislatively mandated the sentencing was an act it was stablished by his honor jets able and within the realm of he suggesting age in mental issues he was able to allow in the hobbs act and have nine or ten armed robberies with a gun and each occasion and she and he making a conscious decision where they get fifty dollars in an amway pride robbery that they only get fifty bucks we're not going to do convenience stores anymore was and then your honor for please the court but the additional factor you know when you have a string of these ten or eleven she's involved in that against being you she's using the profits including going to a family he got no process she was never able to argue any mitigating fact factors of thirty five