thank you may it please the court john ballasts on behalf of defend it along i'm intending to reserve two minutes for rebuttal ok keep your eye on the clock it counts down thank you mr long was convicted in our eastern district of california case of laundering money from two robberies of computer chip plants in the one nine hundred ninety s those two robberies were part of a much bigger case and a racketeering case in the northern district of california  which mr along with sentenced to twenty five years by judge patel the first claim in this appeal is that the district court committed procedural error in failing to address and take into account the sentencing guidelines five g one point three imposing a ten year sentence consecutive to the twenty five year sentence in the northern district guideline five g one point three is designed in sets forth rules  consecutive verses concurrent sentences and is designed so that when two of two of two cases are related involve the same conduct that the purpose is to achieve a total  would have been the same if all the offenses were charged in the same proceeding in this case long's twenty five year sentence in the northern district involves a large number of computer chip robberies the conspiracy charge conduct of the conspiracy paragraphs eighteen and twenty four the twenty eight and they refer to both of those two robberies those two robberies were also used in the guideline calculations in the northern district case robberies actually occurred i believe in the central district mr but the money laundering occurred with the money laundering occurred in the eastern district and didn't  take into account the other sentence when he made twenty two hundred forty pounds concurrent with the northern district isn't that what the guideline contemplates what judge should never did what's that's what's error by failing to consider the guidelines and i cited two out of circuit cases although he did very carefully about it and he imposed this rather which was exceptionally long given the guidelines for the actual crime in front of them in order that it would have as its effect a consecutive sam's while longer than the upper limit of the guidelines not proposed longer how much longer did this result i sentence ten years in addition to years yes and the top end of the guideline as i recall was seventy eight months yes so he's what fifty forty two months more than the top guideline sentences seventy eight months and ran a consecutive two to the northern district case iran and iran round that consecutive two to five years and the twenty four c i don't think it would have added any additional time to the overall sense so you know he's cliff very clear in that very long sentencing transcript that he wants to end time and he says it's going to be complicated and the only way i can make sure this quickness supreme court's instruction and wit in which the court just did projected a double jeopardy argument that it was improper to sentence again and were part of the conduct was relevant conduct and in another case but it said that part of the reason it rejected it was that the guidelines in five g one point three allow you to alleviate the problem by adjusting the sentence and imposing a concurrent sentence that would take into account the two cases in so because of the instruction five g one point three because of the supreme court's decision in which i think the subset of reasonable this argument has even kind of more bite the normal when the court went substantially above the top of the guideline range that last argument to is there is the other procedural error here is that the district court took into account the cost and time involved in prosecuting the case and that is an improper factor his imposition of judgment in sight when he mentioned he mentioned it and he mentioned it is i think a fair reading of it is one of the factors of why he was going for consecutive sends the government i'm quoting the government expects a lot of time and money prosecuting this case and it would be unfair to the government unfair the public and unreasonably simply to impose a sense they would run concurrent so he's stating his that is one of the reasons why is imposing a consecutive the please the court counsel my name is william wall i'm assistant u s attorney from the eastern district i was one day your trial attorneys in this case and i assisted in preparing the brief for the court if i may judge shub sat on his case for over a month he knew the facts of the case intimately he knew of the violence that was perpetrated on the victims of centanni and seen on the government strongly disagrees with council that the northern district in siddur those facts as the nature of defense that's required by thirty five fifty three a what kelso is referring to is the last calculation they use guns to put guns in the heads of the victims made the victims get on your knees one victim testify for the very first time in the eastern district that he was shaken so bad that he started to make up a story that he had a family in hopes that he would be killed anyone shot no one was shot so you're talking about violence that was threatened but that doesn't sound like it was a very violent crime considering compared to awful lot of crimes we see in this court there was no actual injury perpetrated deaths cortez and yes that is correct but the but this is something of the victims live with for the rest of life in fact but for you to say the violent nature of this crime and then it turns out that the only thing they did was put guns on them and never shoot well we know violence and this is by comparison relatively minor well i don't condone it it's criminal but nobody got shot no one got shot but when someone puts a gun to your head it makes you get on your knees that's pretty scary scary thing for these and as the as they testified before judge these witnesses for the very first time ten fifteen years later still shaking and he's clearly a gnat that there will never forget now judge patel never considered sent on or xenon in her sentencing in the sensing transcript in the northern district she never mentioned it once the and therefore inland the fact that there were other pick up think of process me eight other computer companies that were mentioned is quite clear the northern district was not focused on this particular two cases the central district never charge counts in this particular case in the supreme court cases in watts wit and this court's case in u s vs fitch the court can consider as part of nature and the characteristic of the offense those things advance and that evidence was was put on by the government in this case was the judge was clearly aware that now cancels if i could comment on the the court's statement of the reasons why the judge chose that particular sentence he considered the a warrant to disparity because the evidence showed clearly there junk that in the wall when the leaders met each hand and this equal crime bosses in this particular venture in this venture they provided guns direction surveillance money and everything that was required to perpetrate these violent acts so clearly these three individuals should parents i don't know you have to ask just patel that because a record surely that very sensible judge sends them differently i question your assertion that the evidence against them was the same district from sentencing the defendant to the forty year term that judge shelby originally did she ran her sentence concurrent to a sentence that the newman exists yet and so for some reason judge patel felt that this particular defendant should have gotten the twenty five years judge shub evidently did not feel the same the difference is he heard the evidence he heard the trial that's discuss mine i believe that to be the case but i wasn't there at the trial and i'm not i did i do not have an intimate understanding of all the facts and the robbery to the case was so large in our district alone that it was just took a lot of time just a mass of those facts in this case was huge now one thing i do want to make a comment on and that is this the defendant complains about what judge just  said regarding the extent of time used and the cost to the government but the judge did not make check now and so that comment until sept sometime after he went to the analysis under thirty five fifty well he did before he said that he made this comment at the end of his his analysis he says considering all of the sentencing factors it is my intention to impose a sentence that will result in mr long serving an additional ten years one hundred twenty months in addition to the sentence imposed by judge patel that's on that super broker's sixty six so he made it clear that the one hundred twenty month sentence was based on thirty five one last comment that is one of the fourth consideration regarding plane air review is that serious that he seriously affected the fairness integrity or public reputation of the project is your proceedings in this particular case there was more than enough factors in a thirty five fifty three to justify one hundred twenty months i don't think is seriously affected the proceedings here and since nothing was argued at the sentencing by the government could not have responded  well as you say a couple thank you like three points i want to make first of all that mr wong was actually charged in the central district southern district northern district with robberies in the eastern district at the money laundering both the central district and the southern district agreed to dismiss the charges there was a stipulation without prejudice after the convictions in the northern district because he got a twenty five year sentence and  which was sufficient to punish for that for the conduct the eastern district was the only district that refused to do that and that's when we proceeded with the money laundering charges player you're not here on plain error on i believe on any of the any of the three issues the only one that the government argued was on the improper factors  right and that was my i think it would be plain error but my first my main argument would be that there was no opportunity to object you had the court mentioned we had multiple briefs multiple hearings and then after everything the court's anything else you fruitless to meaningless to object and so i think that the point of objecting used to bring it to the judge's attention so they could change make a ruling but at that point it was too late but the money laundering s it and make a determination that you disagree with that this was heinous and i don't disagree very stiff i don't disagree with that but what i disagree with is that the court cannot impose substantial consecutive time when that conduct was a ready taken into consideration in the northern district and in this case it certainly was part of the i disagree with  mr wong here a part of the the conduct of the conspiracy and part of the thirty five fifty three a factors specifically in the northern district present report if you look at paragraphs eighteen and twenty four and twenty six it says the two robbers were admitted at trial and it talks about the victims the robbers using guns and restraining the victims with ties judge patel have all that  of the trial and then determine under thirty five fifty three in the guidelines what the appropriate certain what the sentence was and didn't have to specifically talk about each individual robbery you know would you be standing here making this argument if this had been a guideline sounds imposed consecutively as distinct from out of guideline ten years and some post consecutively that is to say it was judge judge acting appropriately in determining that some in my argument would be that five g one point three and the factors giving the twenty five year sentence the census absolutely unreasonable but but i think the court is correct this is a much stronger case because a court went substantially