i agree that that was a dozen accurate characterization what what relevance does that have to what the district court actually did well preference or has relevance because the promulgating statute for the whether or not someone's a career offender doesn't has no relevance to determining the appropriate sentence on the provocation to that right or wrong well it has no specific relevance under chapter seven but it has relevance to a court why this level of supervised release was appropriate to your client who vote probably treated badly originally due to the requirements of the sentencing mistake in the pre sentence report and paragraph twenty six dollars it says that he is an arm career criminal within the media for be one dollar which is the guideline that goes to arm for a criminal different  it goes actor but that seems to be the source of the air and nobody picked up on it the defense counsel didn't the prosecutor did and nobody looked at this president's report but apparently the court says yes you tongue from the court as a prosecutor keep saying it was some kind of a shorthand for or that you have i don't know sixteen thousand one hundred from the history points you just put you in category six it's not a shorthand this is a real or the source of the  well but she mentions his offender status when she's talking about his criminal history even the context we have a source of there in the context in which the court is is still expressing their indicates a reflection on when that sentence of a supervised release was put in did anybody go back to have a court and say there was this or do you want to reconsider of court but legally counsel it is twenty one dollar to twenty seven dollars and counsel did point out to the court that the so easy grade b violation but the twenty months is the maximum sentence of the court could have imposed on it please the court my name is david kessler i represent the government here today and i represented the government during most of the supervisor release proceedings including the sentencing let me just st very quickly make a point about the record  dollars that's the st page of the government's sentencing letter in footnote one the government did point out to the court that the guidelines arrange for a b violation would have been twenty one to twenty seven months so that wasn't fact and i think that's right your honor i don't think anywhere in the record categorizes him as a career offender as a sort of matter of formality and i also believe that that particular enhancement would not actually apply based on the way his crimes are categorized they're not three crimes of violence or or drug trafficking offenses but none of that matters the point is not that the court determined the defendant was a career offender and then a guidelines calculation based on that determination and then reached a sentence based on that there's no evidence whatsoever that the evidence is that the court recognise the defendant's extensive criminal history and repeated violations that that was erroneous there's no doubt that the two answers the st is no on this record there is not even a reasonable probability that the sentence would have been different given how little shrift the court paid to whatever kind of and certainly there's no conceivable way in which let's say this is an error we reach the standard of plain error given all the other facts surrounding the sentencing commutes almost an edge hypothetical scenario in how something can maybe technically be wrong related to the guidelines and have absolutely no effect on anything related to the sentencing so unless the court has any further questions the government will rest on its submissions thank you sentence was affected by the air and so that is the standard and the court to categorize him as a career fair because the court said he was adjudicated career for energy cade these are not throwaway lines in this exactly the kind of situation where we have to worry about sandbagging i don't mean that that's what happened here but here you have somebody who sees record make a statement that is technically wrong if that person thinks it wrong and really have a big effect if i object the court will correct it and then come out with the sentence if i keep quiet i'm go we're question that is always a consideration but the record here doesn't show that the government didn't point that out surely if it they had recognized the problem they would if they have supposedly an