good morning ok so in that case we are ready to proceed with your argument and remember that you have ten minutes and so if you're going to save your two minutes rebuttal watch that on your own and y appellant's request be upheld and the case be remanded such as at this record for further proceedings in this particular case and i will be filing a letter pursuant to rule twenty eight j i think that one of the cases that would be very case the factors that the court considered we are a congress and we are congress and that the court did this record did not need to recite an endless reasoning for each of the thirty five fifty three factors however in this particular case two things have to be brought to light the first one is that the court still has to take into consideration what it has previously is determined to be extraordinary family circumstances as it did pile on on like the defendant previously  alvarado your honor this is not a defendant that had such an extensive criminal history furthermore your honor the fact that he has a child that has suffered from one hundred percent disability requiring twenty four hour a day care where in particular the government itself had recommended a sentence to be enclosed on the lower end of the guidelines for that was indicative that the cord erred one  of the family circumstances her remarks make that quite clear so you're really just asking us to disagree with the weighing of these factors not it's not as though she didn't know about the family situation that it's correct to run and she's a court knew about the family situation but i think what the court did not quite taken for consideration and granted when you're dealing with discretion and it's subjective it's very hard to set it into clear terms however if we look at these this honorable court's prior decisions and i think that there are three decisions that are p d central  seventh's in this particular case it there to think that the court always looked into there is no doubt as your honor is mentioning it that the court did look into the family situation this is in fact an extraordinary sort of circumstances this is a one hundred reentry he did not receive three prior deportation in that case but rather he had four returns at the border in other words catch and release and return and that's what the district court was worried about the district court found that he hadn't really gotten the message that the law required him not to return without the permission of the attorney general and he admitted that he was wrong that he is not in dispute whatsoever however one night when the court's argument is that the you know he is poster child i conduct he accepted responsibility and like with our sole contentions here is the government's position is that while he's just on happy that the judge issued a sentence that is on the higher end and that's why this hour before the court our position is i'm not going to sentence in the higher end of the guidelines in this particular case we were requesting that he be sentenced to time served and move on to i will he would have been opportunity to request a reasonable fear i incorrectly on the record told the court that it was a credible fear but it should have been a reasonable fear any would have remained in custody he had been in custody taken into account the time that he had already been with i support he was indicted in the district court almost nine months and when we look at all the factors in the thirty five to fifty three year honors this particular defendant cannot be compared to some of the other defendants to and cases that have been before your honor's this is not an aggravated drug trafficker with a lengthy history of violations but rather he had one conviction back in two thousand and one was deported from the united states and returned in two thousand and two that that may be true that of course this was  sentence even though it was at the top of the range it was a sentence within the guidelines recommended area that is correct around of that that the district court did not deviate o guideline range right and there is no doubt that it is with the guidelines range but our contention is that when the court sentenced him within that guideline range that that is a punishment or the punishment is just of the circumstances in this particular case the fact that we had extraordinary family circumstances this is goes beyond having a adult child that suffers from disability this is a minor child th hundred percent disabled has no care whatsoever other than the one that has the forwarded by the mother and as a result even the minor child had to quit school to be able to support the family yes the court did consider it but the harshness all right will want to it i think that's why we have your point so if you'd like to say i don't know if you have any more time yet you have a little more than two minutes so if you'd like to save that for a battle that's what a right you are are i want thank you ron certainly we will hear from morning your honor sir when i was jim kushner they have united states i won't belabor the point made in our brief and from the court comments it's clear that you're familiar with the record this is simply not a case where the district court didn't consider the arguments that were made by appellant in the district court and it is i believe simply a case for the appellant wishes the court and credited those arguments differently and i certainly understand that but that's not the standard for appeal this case so for the reasons that are set