like to talk to the court about the issue of whether it was a correct finding to impose the obstruction of justice and handsome and now at the outset i do recognize that we are here on an issue that has a high standard of review and that is we're talking about a factual finding that on appeal must be found to be clearly erroneous and the question in the core of  saying that mr de martino had never been alone with his son having already said that he had been right or am i misunderstanding their according to miss nugent  testified it was called by the government here after mr de martino was arrested on this allegation a day after she specifically with someone else contacted the child's father and question him whether mr de martino had ever been alone with his his son and he said he had never been alone this new she said that they consistently asked him that question over a period of time his this evidence here in terms of the child's father th changed when he was interviewed by the f b i and assistant u s attorney and in that and the f b i agent who testified at the hearing said that initially in that hearing he said that the child had never been alone with m and also that there were they had witnesses that he had been alone with the child now all i can say is when the sentencing hearing was held there were no other witnesses and with this record was a child even though it was through the task force supported that right well that at the text messages did not support that actually what if we look at ms newton new cheese testimony here she clearly said that mr de martino never asked for the child's father to issue the slaughter she said that what he asked for was a character reference the text messages and this is where the government and your next two things a person is whether or not the district court found that the child  child's father during the interview we have scuse me on that yes isn't theirs but what was the relationship to join that and the telephone bill and if you can you know offer to pay your telephone oh yes you are novel and there is another there was an attempt to explain that there was an exchange of benefits for  the child's father agreeing to give this letter now and that certainly the district court would entitle to take that into consideration well again the testimony here about what what happened with the with the why those benefits were offered those benefits were already being given while mr de martino and the child's father were not and you know out of there was an offer on them there the testimony by ms nucci was that this was a continuation a concern by mr de martin wanting to still care for him because he was really a person who had great trouble in caring for himself and that these benefits had been given while they were still in relationship and then wanted them to continue while he was still incarcerated i think really again this is my analysis of the record here and it is is it enough that the child's father recanted and  child so there was that as well right well with the judge and on that score the judge then also looked at the video of that interview and said i'm not comfortable with saying that what that essentially what that interview were found was where is the evidence on that and it really comes down to twenty two dollars testimony of two well testimony nutri and then the statement and i think that there's another factor here we're talking about the child's father did not testify at the hearing child's father was called took the th the government then did not give the trial of the father immunity to testify so what the argument here is is that you have a real this evidence that we're talking about is it sufficient doesn't meet this high bar of clear and clearly erroneous i mean i'm making the argument it does in the nd issue that him directing that the letter be submitted  yes i think you're objecting to that as well right that there's no evidence that your client asked for the nd letter to be yes and i think that's the core of as as i read the judge's basis for the award of the obstruction of justice in a hansom and it was father before the library before they met at the library she says then another letter that is interact with the child where he picked you guys up from where you went and how he wasn't alone with them yes no like when the judge concluded make the because i have looked at it that's in the government's brief essentially what it comes down to is and i think that the government's analysis is right the new cheese who was called by the government statement that lock was the one to come up with the idea of the nd letter and it does not square with the text message which indicates because it's nucci sending the text message to the child's father and in that text message referring to a nd letter so obviously and that those text messages happened true even if you then say and here's and here's the thing even if you then say so you would have to say st of all concluding that she didn't do that on her own but that your client asked for it and this knew she didn't on her own think about this nd letter in this issue and how important was that your client because you were talking about the st letter also suggested and i would say say not because if there's other visible i'm sorry it's impermissible would i would say it speculative and therefore it doesn't i'm saying it doesn't meet the six a one three standard of reliability now i know that and in a sense you're hearing rules of evidence around it still has that day standard and that's really where the argument is i know i'm arguing a tough tough tough tough issue but i am  good morning in may it please the court katherine gregory assisting u s attorney representing the government in this matter just starting with the obstruction and handsome and as as this court well knows the factual findings are subject to clear error review and here the district court did do the appropriate thing by holding a hearing before it made those findings at that hearing the district court was able to see the witnesses for itself hear the testimony and evaluate the evidence both testimonial and documentary before it including  honour's mentioned the jail call between the appellant and ms nucci in which she refers to the father of her the child as her little buddy and that she's making sure that he's doing what he needs to be doing and that he has everything he needs and as is laid out in our brief the timeline shows that for example that the phone bill the father's phone bill was paid until after he had written that nd letter the district court also saw the text messages that were introduced where it was new to specifically asks for the nd letter where  that would include what the district court later determined to be a lie that the appellate was never alone with the child and finally the agents testimony regarding the father's for canting of that nd letter so after hearing all of this the district court did make findings that were supported by a preponderance of the evidence it seems here that the opponents not alleging a significant procedural error messages treating the guidelines as mandatory or failing to make guidelines calculations at all it seems that the opponent is just taking issue with the factual findings which in this case are not clearly erroneous and additionally that apparently the district court failed to use the word willful what it was making those findings but as this court has repeatedly held there are no magic words at sentencing and  here the appellate has failed to show that the findings were clearly erroneous and there's no basis to disturb the application of the unhandsome and i would just like to briefly address the substantive reasonableness as as this court again is well aware substantive unreasonableness is meant to be a backstop for those few cases where the sentence would be shockingly high or unsupportable as a matter of law and here with well over twenty thousand images and an appellant who was flagrantly disregarding the terms  his release and where the district court actually says at sentencing i wouldn't have given you the benefit of the doubt that you got from the magistrate judge about your initial possible violation of the one hundred and twenty five months which was within the guidelines recommendation what we did reduce the range to a few well i mean for example in the plea agreement here and stated you could see it contemplated a guideline calculation range i believe it was seventy eight months to reserve decision in this case the remaining four count cases on the calendar which i will not resign by name around submission so i will ask the clerk please have a nice weekend off