still held those factors that aren't specifically included are excluded was there any indication here the court relied upon one of the x factors there is no end in our case demonstrate is the reliance or at least any specific reliance on any permissible factors and hence the grab amount of our assignment of error is that it is impossible that is not possible for this court to divine whether the court just recorded  permissible factors because the courts in all the statutory mandate that the courts does it by with specificity the fact is that the court is relying upon and thirty five fifty three see to the requirement of stuff that  any specifically applies in a case where the court goes outside of the chapter seven advisory guideline sentence and if it's all the more relevant in this matter because one of the permissible factors back of the court is required required to at least consider under thirty five fifty three eighty four is the advisory guideline range in this case the court the only mention of the visor guidelines specify explicitly which is required why a sentence but then the six to twelve month range is an adequate to meet the permissible grounds of sense and that is what our simon a very is today and just as a way to address the government's argument that this is a sign of error is not preserve the government wants to distill argument down to one of its one fine points which is that we didn't object to the courts lack of handled in a consolidated revocation proceeding there are different guideline ranges that are attendance each of the three cases there are two that appear to be eight to fourteen months advisory guideline ranges and one the view to six to twelve that the court relied  upon the government wants to argue well there is no requirement here that the court but the court all the mandates of thirty five fifty three c two because what the court could have done is stack up advisory guidelines sentences to reach thirty six six months on that was actually i different sense and guideline ranges and at no time in this is particularly important because the courts that's a five that i'm going to impose consecutive sentences guidelines sentences to group up to the thirty six months thirty five eighty four the statutory concurrent right yes yes if the only requirement in the revocation of supervised release as far as running consecutive are concurrent is that the sentences were imposed in separate the underlying criminal conviction judgements were  using separate proceedings so the court yes the court had the authority in this matter if the court so chose to impose consecutive sentences for all three terms but there's no very little indication this record that back o one public safety and to the fact that he needs some time to gain proper rehabilitation on those permissible factors they could be permissible factors that the court what you need is not more any more instruction so the court seems to be explicitly and that's a problem with this matter that's a long colloquy i'm like miguel this is a long call it is to be saying you're out of control you've been using drugs you  credit your point that he didn't make specific findings it seems as though he sang you've got a danger to society because you can't control yourself and then you have to go in and think about things i'm going to give you some time to think about from a school that's right honest as i read through here it may not be quite as clean and sharp as we'd like but it's not that hard to figure out what he had in mind and what was driving this decision and if there's no suggestion that it's an impermissible factor is there anything to be accomplished simply to send it back for a different education there is perhaps some way there could be a procedural and in causing this thought process goal and sending it back to the district with i think the court did with that what the court did was give a very impassioned and meaningful to locally to the client the problem here is that there is a explicit statutory mandate that the court support one of those the same sentence that is a possibility but is also a possibility that perhaps the court will mitigate decisions when applying explicitly the proper statutory factors and we submit that under the law we are entitled to that chance and i would had stated twelve months was a reasonable and adequate sentence to the day of the objectives of thirty five fifty three the court then went on for ten pages to explain all of the numerous specific reasons why it justify thirty six months i don't believe that the court specifics certainly the court did not say i'm going to send you to thirty six months and thirty six months alone will do for these particular reasons i would certainly think the defendant disingenuously ignores all of the reasons that the court in fact did state the court covered every single permissible reason in there's absolutely no record whatsoever that the court considered any of the permissible reasons there was a long exchange i believe it was over three pages in the transcripts where defense counsel brought them acknowledged court case to the court's attention it was discussed there was absolutely no disagreement among any of the parties  court that those factors would not be considered the court never talked about those factors instead the court chalked about protection of the public the need for deterrence history and character of this defendant the fact that his criminal record spanned forty the sometimes the defense counsel my judge my client needs a good talking to would you would you give a very strong and so this occurs and then later suppose to draw significance from that one way or the other when really at the end we're looking at the statutory factors whether that was a finding on the statutory facts as far as that's what the statute is there may be enough here but it certainly would make our job easier if and it's not difficult as you suggest at the end of the colloquy of the rhetoric the speech to say where the court said i've got to think about protection of the public in this again was after reciting all of these difficulties that the defendant had for all of these years about i think about protection of the public and he then sent the defendant thirty six months after having been requested to stay within the arguably twelve month range whether that is or isn't there raises another issue of course but that was clearly in the courts mind that was the guideline range the court was applying patient officer jed and just as a side note it went in the court looks at the reason why this is a certain i don't think that it's completely insignificant that ultimately the defendant have the benefit of all these cases being resolved in front of judge george that certainly gave the defendant the opportunity for one george one judge to look at the entirety of the record me and perhaps give him a break on that but had these cases been decided separately by the three different judge and he could have gotten seven years there would history in the seriousness of this offense and are used to the court this court impermissible back to the fact of repeated problems in permissible when i'm supposed to go back to the prior offenses themselves but the fact of offense is time adequate deterrents the court never mention the word deterrence and all this notice and because my time is up seven seconds that there are three mentions in the record that could hardly kind of permissable backers by the court hearing is going on since a sentence well you are sixty nine seventy one and  four briefly patently no it's a breach of trust and to be concerned about society in general to have to protect you said i i need to be concerned about society in general surveyed and he does say that i believe on page seventy one and that would