statement to me or the false statements to the pretrial or to the probation officer yet the court had already adjusted for that in terms of the two points by the district court judge was in fact thirty one months above the high end of the of the guideline range and yes your honor this is how much of a percentage though flows from the fact that it was a relatively low god mine range if it had been you know a two hundred and thirty five month range and there was a sentence thirty one months higher the percentage increase would have been very small percentage increase here but what i focus exercising his discretion and i am not sure having properly calculated the guidelines he was bound to do more than he did i would simply refer to the dorsey case your honor by example that was a thirty three to forty one month guideline range the court there imposed one hundred and twenty months and the reason is in dorsey as in this case the government presented evidence of murder by the  defendant the judge and dorsey said the evidence meets the preponderance standard judge feinerman in this case heard the evidence and said it does not meet the preponderance standard for all the reasons we discuss so i would suggest that mister gonzales received the same sort of sons as if he had been found guilty of murder in the name or that judge simon said that was not what he was doing and i don't see anything that's your own nation that brings the murder allegation back in e know a similar age that defender was twenty nine dollars had four felony convictions and fifty two dollars arrests this defendant had one single felony conviction and six  into account those factors at all the issue in terms of the guidelines do not specifically address those factors your honor but i believe that they  calculation here are going far beyond more than double what the recommendation was by the probation department and in fact what the government had asked for unlike whe let me stop you right there usually emphasize the probation officers recommendation we have repeatedly said that it is true judge he is not bound by a probation officer's recommendation need not disclose it and even when it is disclosed there is no obligation procedurally to address it or to give it any particular weight that is not out of lack of respect for the professionalism of the value work probation officers do it just has to do with the way the system is set up so that really is not going to get any traction what i'm interested in is why it's inappropriate for the district judge to rely on these additional error aggravating factors that are not accounted for  in the guidelines to justify this higher sentence your honor the court made the determination that while there was a false statements to the court rejected the suggestion that the defendant be denied the three points for acceptance of responsibility so all my question is focused on the points that the district court identified in aggravation the game connection selling of the guns multiple guns and it's in chicago where armed gangs are special problems have noted the defendant trafficked a firearm for someone he believed to be a fellow latin kings gang member and then offered to sell that individual to additional firearms the district court recognized consistent with this court since needed to deter other felons from his essene firearms but especially from selling firearms to gang members regarding specific deterrence you just report found that that this was a  and he said all the things you said but what's the government's view on the fact as mr mcgurk points out that at least some of these considerations were also addressed in the guidelines so the dishonesty he gets obstruction of justice the recidivism of course would be reflected in his criminal history does that in any way undermine judge fireman's decision to rely on these points or much for your assistance to your client and and to us and thank you thanks as well to the government we will take