sentence and this court reversed the district court in this particular case i will admit that the court as is shown on page twenty three of the excerpt after it imposes these sentence of two to the district court at sentencing those prior offenses were already being counted before you've got to that advisory guideline first of all because of the age fifty one information that enhanced is mandatory minimum from five years to ten years as for the risk of a reset of ism as was pointed out to the district court this particular man had served his federal sentence completed it in one nine hundred ninety nine and had not been involved in any criminal activity for six years the problem with his prior offenses is that this particular individual had never gotten any drug treat dilemma and i think that that's something that we're struggling with as a core and we're practicing on a lot of these right now here and trust me we see a lot of things that we would not sense a person you know sometimes who might give them or sometimes we might give them last that doesn't say mean it's reasonable or unreasonable or it's something that we can and we were not here for review right and i fully understand that the thing here though is that the statute thirty five fifty three says that the court is to impose a sentence that is sufficient but not greater than necessary to serve all the purposes of sentencing and that's the point here is that to this two  hundred sixty two months is greater than necessary because it's criminal history before you get to the career of offender guidelines and that that guideline applied i'm not saying it didn't apply i mean it's still going to be considered  it's still going to be considered by the district court and we have here a man that is was forty seven years old with the sentence of the district court imposed he's going to be seventy years old before he ever gets out of prison saying well they should have given him treatment let's say i'm the judge that looks at it differently and says you're forty seven years old you've had a lot of brushes with the law you can't get better unless you want to get better you've certainly had a lot of time to wake up you're not you know you're not you're not you know you've you've gone to present you have the idea that it's not it's not good but you still then you haven't done anything about it why should why would a judge then be required to say well you know since you've never been to a program you know i'm going to give you one now or i've got to give you a discount because you've never on your own don't punch our programs even though you you know why isn't that a reasonable way to look at it to say you haven't gotten your heart haven't we you program but second of all as i said the funny should do it in custody that's right and i think that was to make sure he got it but second of all this man even though he had never had drug treatment indication that he had been involved in anything because he was working apparently as a log or in their lives in your position it is that if there's ever been book or r the benefit of those to see if that helps you out i would like to have the benefit of those to go back and have this case remanded for recess and saying so that the court can consider something other than just the advisory guidelines because the that in any way alter you know what we have here because i mean some let's just say have the ball and falls into something else i'm not i can't say where i can tell it's final i mean there's a number of things that can happen in rest cornish you know reasonable and start there and one thing that this of all the court did mention was that sometimes a starting point such as the guideline range may become the finishing point because there's just simply nothing that moves the court off that that's guideline quite being final and possible you know if i mean there could be possible permutations what is your view on whether we should wait tempers cases get final before we decide  january of this year