price thank you we consider it a small success if most of today's moral argument focused solely on this court's decision and united states the rossa decided this past april four days after we hangs by i read that story as it is alone constitute adequate reasons for the sentence of life imprisonment parentless heinous and personal that's it the court said nothing else we maintained that these ad are non descriptive generic and uninformed take the facts and rossa defendant they're committed wire fraud an aggravated identity theft the nd he's had to run consecutive assume for a moment that he words don't themselves don't amount to much even as to the adjective heinous which the court reyes had no criminal record and its guidelines range was three hundred and sixty months to life we think that there was no crime  the things that the criminal activity is as he obviously did how how is the use of that ad to to in any way undercut by the absence of a prior record life chances are that the crime was heinous i don't think there is any crime that that isn't heinous where a person is situated in that way so that is the reason that i maintain that the word heinous is non descriptive argument with roe so and basic all the courts that will be gone we scrutinize the statement of reasons nothing in here there's so much here that incorrect that long we're going to give a brief that while we i mean we start again situations where the court fails to comply with refunds but receipt and doesn't provide adequate reasons for purposes of the statute sometimes a firman scam occurred nevertheless adopt the statement of reasons we'll get a break and not having a complied with receipt however we're going to scrutinize the statement of reason to see that it was done properly to ensure that it's an adequate backup or an adequate substitute for actual for the actual reasons in open court and in roe so the courts for different things that were wrong with the statement reason so as to preclude use as the government has urged here also we identify in our reply brief for four things that were wrong with the district court statement of reasons which should preclude reserve my time thank you carol thank you very much army please the court kevin trough the united states i think we agree i agree with my adversary that rosa's is particularly instructive although i disagree with him that it's controlling d i think rosa makes clear that in that case the court explained and the briefing confirms that the district court gave no reasons whatsoever the district court simply said i consider the three thousand five hundred and fifty three dollars factors and entered a sentence and that is not the case that we have here even as as as my adversary mentioned a moment ago he started by saying there were three words or maybe he was being more specific that there were three adjectives but but then he noted in his argument the court was focused on the nature of the means by which the murder was committed i submit to you that there's no reason the court is precluded from considering that in fact it's a highly relevant how the relevant facts under three thousand five hundred and fifty three a that goes beyond the three simple words that he suggested the district court used the government's position as and i think this is supported by rosa is that three thousand five hundred and fifty three c imposes a low threshold and where the issues as they were here particularly on remand having resolved most or in fact all of the outstanding issues in the st appeal on remand there was very little to do district judge johnson was was found the crime to be handed personal horrendous and imposed a sentence that that reflected that and i'll just note for your honour's that in the guideline to a one point one for st degree murder which was the guideline that applies here in light of mr wright has a concession in his plea agreement that it was premeditated guideline application to a said in the case of premeditated killing life imprisonment is the appropriate sentence if a sentence of death is not imposed that's not so obviously not binding on anyone the government doesn't intend to suggest that but it's to refer it reflects the sense that for a crime of this type regardless of the individual's criminal history i don't see that having any effect whatsoever here given the nature of this crime that we're starting from that premise and the district court was properly  on the crime to be heinous horrendous and personal and imposed a sentence that simply rejected the arguments that the defendant made and and was read you know was reasonable under the circumstances to the extent he raises that argument as for the also just helped marshal i guess for me just so i'm clear on the government's position on what it was that judge johnson took into account in determining  not to impose a three hundred and sixty months of the sentence which act could could be a life sentence in this case anyway right between that and life imprisonment well i think your honor that and fifty three factors that usually does the trick and so here i think what you can glean from the record what is not gleaned you can it what is clear from the record is that the district court heard understood and and considered all of the arguments made by the parties and during the course of the sentencing the court refers back to some of the calls about the obstruction of justice cause that that the defendant was captured on showing both that he was engaging with the arguments and that he was aware of those issues so i don't see any question he considered those things he just and nor is there any case law that i'm aware of in the court that suggests he needed to go point by point in refute them he heard them he considered them and he simply rejected them and said in light of the heinous nature of the personal and rose up the court identified the consideration that drove the selection of the sentence and that was never if it nature of this crime it's not that's not complicated but this is not a complicated case it's very straightforward the arguments presented were straightforward and the court simply concluded that in light of those facts life was appropriate that's sufficient to our appellate review i think i mean as i read rosa your honor i think what rosa saying is we have here a case that where the district court said nothing that's plainly insufficient i'm not suggesting that rosa held that anything above nothing is sufficient so maybe there are some narrow band of cases where it's more than nothing but less than what sufficient under three thousand five hundred and fifty three dollars see but here where the case this is not a complex fraud this is not a case where a life sentence would even be eyes to mr unexpected or a surprise the guidelines say that that would be offended the sentence the very sentence that the previous judge the time judging the explanation against that it was clear what drove this it is a horrific crime the court found it was and imposed a sentence in light of that and this a trial is it any part of the government's argument that i don't recall you mentioning it but maybe i  missed it that this is a plain error case right no one asked the judge in the district court to give a further explanation of the sentence that's correct drama which of course it would have been very easy to do and if it had been done presumably the judge would have either failed somehow or given bad reasons or would have elaborated to whatever degree that was pursued why a judge would be at least considering the possibility of a life sentence are fairly obvious the sort of opportunity to just let it slide or even the defense counsel making a different case wouldn't we i agree your honor it sort of opens the opportunity for sandbagging on appeal and here you know mr races lawyers have asked for a man to a different judge which i think the point that you're making want to make clear that that would be wholly inappropriate  nothing improper a lot about what the judge did here and in fact the failure to request a further explanation suggests that to those in the room the explanation was sufficient also the government is capable of telling the district court that perhaps its reasons aren't adequate as defense counsel is at sentencing as well this argument about an application note it wasn't argued below it wasn't argued in the briefs where murder is where where a license is proper i have no idea i've never seen that no off hand not having had any notice that it was going to  price we will reserve decision in this case