today we have similar issues here with respect to standard review and larry of twenty eight j letters in both barrels and pennington and i don't intend to reciting things that were largely said on the topic other than to note that standard view is very important because it's determinative oftentimes the outcome of the case and we should not be wedged into playing every view when in the circumstance like this you have somebody who filed the sentencing memorandum sentence the judge is not going to get moved off the mark there's nothing further for a repeat performer like my office is to edit the judge on for additional explanation try to move it off its mark to say to the judge you know  adequately i need to keep on with this game in order to preserve the issue i don't think that that's where we want to go on these cases everything that was needed to be done to preserve the issue was done here and this is not a circumstance that result in a different standard of different than what he did other than say the judge understand your reasoning and then point out on the appeal that she was wrong as to that factor because not everybody gets that i've got mine and he has spent in fact very few get it i think he said it's point six percent of all cases he couldn't have known that until just research in this case and again we believe that everything's been adequately preserved for purposes of one argument going into the merits not the judge procedurally erred when she relied on her speculation ice is more valuable and dangerous than other forms of methamphetamine judges aren't supposed to speculate clearly dead here she said as much in the record and i believe that that page twenty eight of the transcript  so by baking in that explanation into her counter example and she was going on why on this is best we can tell the government didn't file a sentencing memorandum and so these were arguments that it made the judge made them  mullins was doing his best to address the judge's concern on these points but he had no alternative other than to do what he did in this case by way of pointing out that that was an assertion by the judge  essentially the government that excuse me the government essentially argues that the judge is one hundred pounds to reject the contract the contest of the particular guideline but that's not so under ideal where to when somebody is given specific examples about why the guidelines happened here and that was the procedural error and i don't think there's any way to read the record other than in support of the quest for the reading and have nothing other than that reserve and bounce my t methamphetamine dealer who was dealing out of a home with young children multiple controlled by his took place and in that home surveillance video a loaded gun and i mean or drug dealing credibility was held none of these allegedly erroneous statements individually or collectively prejudiced of mr bastardi which is clear from the district court's thorough discussion of the thirty five fifty create factors that led to its rejection of the defendant's request for one third variance based on the policy and like the first for the district court's comment that by acting as a mid level regarding the substantial risk of environmental harm mr boster has also challenge the district court statement that if this were a domestic lab manufacturing case he likely would receive a three level and he has been for the rest of america harm just short that argument this is every drug case i don't think those statistics are are on point to this discussion furthermore i have a judge here who is a former prosecutor who sits in the central district of illinois who  numerous methamphetamine manufacturing cases that occurred in the mid two thousand and six has previously observed that the mom and pop labs were more prevalent before the crackdown we can't expect her to come to the bench with an empty dish in mind and i think it was certainly were considered an error the judge had already rejected the defendant's policy argument at the time it went over the hypothetical guideline range and made it clear that this hypothetical might be more accurate if she were going to discount the increased  for a policy disagreement with the guidelines there's a problem with that though is that the judge is acting to undergird what her inclinations are important from a she from her time prosecutor she thinks she's explaining in an experien explanation of her view that there was nothing no real reason based on her experience with these kinds of cases to engage in a policy disagreement as the other judge had done even these in their explanation sentence or unsupported or speculative that i think is the problem judge but i understand your point and again there's no way for us to separate out what the is and how it impacts sentence the better course if we need evidence it should be presented by the parties not offered by the judge it wasn't done here and we are left with a record that we have that is inclusive of the judges