conduct his criminal history and the testimony that was presented at the recent hearing there is simply no justification for a ten year prison sentence for this fence if we're looking first at what i did seems to have a terrible give reasons one of the reasons he gave was precisely your point fact that he had a very long criminal history but if we actually look at that history we look at the age of that history we look at the nature of the history and we look at the gap between that history and when this offense actually occurred and then on top of that we look at the explanation that the court gave connecting the previous convictions to this conviction the connection simply isn't there this court referenced pardon me not this report in the district court referenced convictions and it's written opinion that occurred when mr lockwood was fourteen and when he was twenty three years old mr lockwood turned fifty years old two days ago and prior to this offense he had been convicted of a criminal offense since two thousand three former sister in law i might add your honor that the testimony about the gun was actually contradicted on the stand by that witness's police report in which he told the police at the time of the incident that mr lockwood did not have a gun but turning back to the criminal history because i think that's a very important part of this case even if we assume that mr lockwood should have been given a higher criminal history category let's say he should have been given the highest criminal case history category of a six he was given a one year because most of his convictions were very a statutory minimum or maximum that's correct your honor but when a judge varies from the guidelines range they must provide a sufficiently compelling justification of the words they have to do more to explain why they are vary from not guidelines range particularly here when the multiple is almost three and this is a statutory maximum sentence which leaves absolutely no room for other offenders who have frankly more culpable conduct or even offenders that have more egre criminal history than mr lockwood pat and as i use those as i was saying even if we are to assume that he should have been given a higher criminal history category the sentence he could have received under the guidelines is still well under the one much and you know you you know i realize that this guy had thirty who he's a mechanic this is going and some other things are some disagreement there but this is what judges do when they government's range well it's our position that it was reasonable for her to ask for a one hundred twenty months only you do what you need to do to yes or yes or are our position our position here is that the reasoning of the district court regardless of how long lengthy we agree he did address a lot of what was addressed in the sentencing hearing a lot of mr lockwood's criminal history but he didn't address the age of that history he also didn't address the fact that a lot of the allegations that came out during the recent securing work largely uncharged allegations of domestic violence conduct certainly i'm not saying that that's not bad conduct or that a court can't consider it but in this case there really wasn't a connection uncharged domestic violence that came out during his recent unsing hearing for an offense in which mr lockwood possessed advice by the way which both parties agree did not harm anyone could not have harmed anyone and was never millet people who make bad decisions there are bad decisions bad people not bad decisions well your honor it's ok he people do things like that very bad people i understand your honor but we can't that on a terrible record that's correct your honor but our sentencing system is not set up to increase people sentences just because we think they're bad people oh that's not true at all that's not true at all that's in thirty five fifty three years to the gravity of the crime or the the the public indignation that particular criminal activity those are permissible considerations for a judge that's correct your honor thirty three fifty three you just contradicted yourself you just said comprehensive explanation for why he believed mr walker would was hopelessly violent individual had to be incapacitated for ten years we believe that explanation is sufficient to justify the sentence that the district court imposed there was a gap between the last conviction and this conviction and while counsel refers to that as uncharged domestic violence that gap was filled in by the testimony of the victim of that domestic violence which showed that mr lockwood continued in his violent ways even after his last criminal conviction that gap has been filled in mr wa your honor i just hear i would just like to reiterate here that we're not asking this court to say that a court can't consider uncharged conduct a sentencing we're not asking this court to find that you can't look at a defendant's criminal record and we're not asking this court to find that a sentencing judge doesn't have discretion certainly they do but that discretion has limits and the limits are to be reviewed by the sport and in this case there's simply no