the maximum statutory penalty for each count which resulted in total sentence of two thousand eight hundred eighty months this type of case is an extremely difficult case for a defense attorney as a parent it's difficult to set aside personal feelings and deal with that personal revulsion at the nature of the offense to be able to provide appropriate representation and that is why the most important functions of this court to be able to do the same i understand why you're here and why it's really not to play games none of this like what's going on thank you your honor i recognize that and i think the decisions show that to a large extent and that a number of very serious sentences have been affirmed on appeal but i think the court does have to analyze whether the sentence is appropriate now the court in this case did calculate a guideline  hundred to two thousand how do you say he said thirty two thirty three now he just turned thirty three so two hundred months would be about seventeen years yes so that would were greater than forty three f while the total offense level is greater than forty three after application of it hants months and so really none of the mitigating factors mattered at that point at least to the court and the because the forty three is a recommendation of a life sentence the guidelines to instruct to stack consecutive sentences for the underlying counts sufficient to reach the recommended guideline sets however it's our contention that two thousand eight hundred eighty months is well in excess of  a life sentence or the recommended guideline sentence no no it's not in it's not in excess of a life sentence that's served you can't sentence a person to more than life right  for two thousand years right so it doesn't make any difference whether the judge says life or says two thousand years or ten thousand years where the judge couldn't say life in this case because a light that there was statutory  i'll still be a child molester well he will be a convicted child molester who know he will still be able to still want to molest children i believe the scientific evidence indicates that is the correct well that suggests the sentences to assure why people are still sexually active in their sixty's well but especially as far as in familial child abusers the statistical rate of recidivism is less than for people who solicit non family members to molest and again i think for any but any offense according to the calculations i read in the guidelines that the that the rate of recidivism does reduce and also is a he's lifetime supervised release jay that would make it very difficult for anyone to re offend especially in in light of the fact that computer i would it be if well because he's subject to probation review i don't believe you can own a computer as now i'm not sure what the status is going to be around minor children and i understand that's not a guarantee at all but that would be a right condition of his supervised release certainly not living in a household  and still alive yes she could be out yes she's still alive in knowing that well i don't know that she would know that it would be out or not i mean that i believe she's with another family but the she's changed her well it should be an adult at that time so there wouldn't be any question of whether foster parents or anybody would disclose that to her but that does lead me to what i think is an important mitigating factor and as a practitioner concerns me about  initial statement and as such as a c j attorney who does trial work if if i put person charged with a crime like this ask me if it does as if he has any benefit of pleading guilty based upon the judge's decision here i'd have to tell him no it will make no difference and what i'm concerned about is that if someone wants to put the victim through additional punishment than that or additional suffering or i believe i believe the videos would be more than sufficient however i've been informed regularly by trial judges that the government can present its case in any fashion they wish and i hope the government would not do it in this case i don't think they would need to but even so there be publi he about the case right now the idea of credit for sparing the victim and the need to testify is just not in play here because this is a manufacturer in possession of child pornography case and not  as the court has indicated the concern about the victim's awareness of this and certainly a sentence even of the three hundred sixty months or a thousand months in this case would give the victim more peace of mind than having a trial coming up at which point grossly disproportionate under the eighth amendment and the government spent quite a bit of time looking at the cases his cases among the most serious clearly however the that doesn't absolve the trial court of considering the thirty five fifty three factors primarily his expression of remorse acceptance of responsibility the legislative intent of the guidelines is to give some sort of credit for that he got no credit all in fact i think based on the sentencing judge statement he would not have gotten credit for any mitigating for he need a lot of credit to get in their life right now this is well there's no there's no specific determination of how mitigation but even on the merits district court considered all the thirty five fifty three of actors and considered misdirections arguments in particular the district court did note that mr extra cooperated and that he pled but as the district court also noted and as i judge sykes pointed out really what choice did he have as a practical matter every piece of evidence the government needed was on the thousands and thousands of images or videos that he made of him sexually abusing three prepubescent girls there was no need for the victims to testify as i understand it the government had no intention of calling the victims to testify this went to trial in terms of  sentencing the district court followed the procedures of the sensing guidelines in section one b one point one the guidelines tell the dish or court how to calculate the offense levels says you calculate the offense level first then you take off the three points for acceptance of responsibility and if it's still about forty three then you go down to forty three mr actually got three points for acceptance of responsibility but because of his actions that took his base offense level from fifty eight down to fifty five as judge posner noted he would have needed another twelve point somehow acceptance of responsibility even get down to the maximum call for in the guidelines judge simon addressed all of his arguments  judge simon said in the sentencing he's a judge that does occasionally disagree with a sense of guidelines when it comes to child pornography cases but he noted this wasn't the case to disagree this was a case where the defendant began sexually abusing jane doe one when she was eight and did it day in and day out for four years he transmitted those images online and over ten thousand were found at the time sensing you physically abused her he gave her drugs he described his relationship with her boyfriend girlfriend relationship judge simon noted all this he noted that mr ekstrom sexually abused jane doe two when she was six recorded that transmitted that online as well and he noted that mr extreme took the lead in the city s pictures of jane doe three when she was nine or ten judge simon considered all the factors in this case he noted that this was the single most disturbing case he'd seen on the bench he noted jane doe ones victim i statements and how distressing they were and how they painted a bleak picture i honestly don't know what more a judge simon could have considered he gave mr extreme some credit for taking classes in jail but as you noted that didn't outweigh the aggravating factors in this case judge simon looked at the individual factors mr extreme's individual characteristics and that's exactly why he gave this two hundred forty year sentence he did follow what the guidelines said and because no count of allowed him to impose a life sentence he stacked the statutory max onst as closely approximate life as he could unless the court has any questions we would rest on our briefs as to all other points and ask that you affirm the sentence thank you briefly your honor again the government cites the heinous facts in the case as justifying the sentence end of life sentence is appropriate under the guidelines we still believe that two thousand eight hundred eighteen months or two hundred forty   is an excess of a life sentence in the court means to draw a line somewhere it has to regardless of the facts of the case that what is to what constitutes a life sentence thank you ok thank you