because you know the numbers here are not staggering i think there's a temptation to think this is not important court case but if you want to closely it is interesting sentencing principles go it's a fundamental strategy and so was going on in this case so our claim is that the court sort of generalized answers but he's not i mean i as you say it's pretty short term is right here in your brief and it seems to me the judge does a lot of the things that you're saying he didn't do  a couple of times and we have one of them i'm seeing around page eleven which is i want to give you credit for the apparent fact you haven't engaged in at least serious criminal conduct since you returned talks about the drinking talks about you know the fact that he does seem to be somewhat incorrigible about coming back after being removed from the country and so the judge i think quite consistently with thirty five fifty three a is taking and he doesn't quite phrase it is deterrence but it's a deterrence function that he's taking into account both specific and general well i agree your honor and it's it's transit up by three months which is you know something i don't trivialize three months in prison but nonetheless i mean if the judge thinks or tweak of three months is necessary to achieve it to represent this particular man's characteristics and the need to deter him from further violations of the law he's going to be back out on the streets after he could be back in mexico after two years and the judge is hoping he's not then going to come back case but he did explain it that way but he made on page four of the sentencing transcript in q and a with counsel and on page fourteen it's a clear individual and general deterrence message articulated as such he says you know when to send a message to you and to possibly other who reenter this country for lots of economic and other hardship reasons and at least sending defendant that he simply have to make a life in mexico notwithstanding whatever pulls there may be for him to attempt to return to his country that's on top of much connally said very early on in the sentencing transcript of sentencing hearing about his his primary concern about this case i mean if this is procedurally and we're going to be having you know three hour sentencing proceedings in very simple straightforward there's possibly no federal statute in a sense that is violated more frequently meaning that the persons who tried to violate it tend to be repeated by a waiter's than a legal reentry it and it doesn't mean judges aren't entitled to consider that very fact and issuing graduated penalties he had previously been sentenced to eighteen months the message did not get through so the judge was going to up the ante in order to make sure the message did get through and also to send a message to general violators you're making an argument against yourself here but i certainly i mean if you if were to go back to before yours area and how that the ridge the sensors you used to be where you know for a departure no departure is a when the court goes above the guidelines where the sentencing inflection point of this hearing is going to be and he tells you that right from the get go of the sentencing hearing this is what i'm concerned about he said he had an eighteen month sentence and still he reentered right but that didn't get the message through and so something more than the guidelines range is going to be required here tell me why i'm wrong say you were kept an ample opportunity to argue against it at the procedure here was flawless i mean i was a respect would we disagree in the sense that the what was said here does not relate in any way meaningfully to what the two this particular defendant and he went on in detail about this defendant characteristics all of the mitigating factors were noted and he was credited for that they just didn't outweigh the main concern that the judge came into the sentencing hearing with that he gave ample notice of you're out of the you know the the difference  between you know departure and a variance as you know variance would be about that the nature and circumstance of this offense which would particularly the illegal reentry into the united states the factors here in terms of a graduated sentence because of a criminal history that that was overstated because of this ten year finding those particularly would have been under the notice provision departure alerted the defense counsel piers you before the sense of where think as has already been detailed extensively in the prior argument the court did in addition to the deterrence statement that judge sykes right on the court also said that he had ignored the laws of this country and he detailed the violations that the defendant had occurred on the record indicated there were forty w y as he indicated there was a battery and he actually gave him credit for the battery fourteen years ago he said albeit fourteen years ago and he was concerned about a sexual assault of a child he indicated that he was concerned that the defendant's criminal history was under represented factor that the judge could can consider he also said that the judge defined it was a danger to the community  quite frequently frequently i didn't request a specific sentence in my letter to the court knowing that would be a concern for this court so going into it already defense counsel was aware of what the concerns would be the judge addressed the mitigating arguments both the ones that were made ahead of time that is that he came back to help an ailing girls friend that he had not committed any serious crimes he addressed the argument such that it was made at sentencing that perhaps he could have possibly received a lower guideline and i'm in arizona due to some some guideline amendments in the judge's opinion that didn't matter because what he was doing that particular factor was going about so many so many can you remind me this must have been gone through at the plea hearing what the statutory maximum for this depends on the priors your honor would and our plea letters detail each subsection of the statute what the what the max is are with this particular defendant i believe that it was ten years but i could not say that  normally in the course of accepting a guilty plea the court will inform a defendant know what the statutory maximum then of course there's usually no then there should be a pre sentence report i'll decide ultimately but if i cash if the defendant had already been told of the statutory max it was ten years then i guess that place is a little bit of context for the twenty four months pregnant and our players also the defendant has to acknowledge the fact that the court doesn't have to follow the sentencing guidelines and compose can impose any sentence up to and including the maximum penalty is so forth in the plea agreement them so that is made clear to the defendant quite early on in the process as well so so the bottom line is the court  consider the proper factors did in great detail explain how those factors played into the sentencing imposed you consider the defendant's arguments and this was a proper sentence as the court has questions i would respectfully request that the i see none so thank you very much thanks to both counsel will take