for a downward departure overrepresentation a criminal history the out of the district didn't address none of my hits you whatsoever rather he chose to focus on the fact that my client had children out of wedlock and times when court giving a very bare bones judgement is ok but this isn't one of them in these unique circumstances and in opinion and it doesn't as important that it springs where it read that it doesn't have to be a full written opinion and the question of whether it's a brief opinion along opinion whether it's written what's address has to do with the circumstances and here there is no way predict court to meaningfully review what the visiting judge did in argus report in albuquerque because other then expressing his concern about the fact that my client had children with it but it was a big issue in albuquerque it was a big issue in our legal community it was a big issue in our actual community it was in the press and there's a lot of litigation going on about it so what happened and it does happen around the country and the inspector speak to albuquerque to go to a poor neighborhood and they start that's running up or neighborhood and they are targeting in this case drug users and they start getting drug users to get them drugs and sell them drugs which isn't surprising because if you're a drug user you know where to get drugs and how to get drugs and you need money to get drugs and when someone comes to you and asks you to get them drugs it's a rather attractive offer and additionally the a t f was offering higher than usual prices for the drugs so they go and they get them to make another sale or they try to get them to to sell guns and this operation was particularly offensive in our jurisdiction because of its targeting of poor people of minorities  of the fact that he didn't perform any of the procedural things that he needed to in the situation where there is a non frivolous issue that is before him that is legitimate legitimate enough that the government conceded in there as i said in there that the memo that they would defer to the court is a court but that were inappropriate reason for various probation suggested that a variance might be appropriate and the court said absolutely nothing about it in so it's put you wise the the reviewing court in a horrible position because all you can possibly do is speculate literally the only thing you in then goes and i think there is if i may quote from that right on point for what i'm saying mira losing to saturate factor but out accompanying discussion of application the fact lacks specificity to satisfy to duty and then you went on to talk about the two major issues of meaningful review and to promote respect and transparency and the perception that they're sending to our client to clients to the community and i think that's right on point but he gives you nothing to do either of those the just the district court that mention the previous drug conviction your honor the only thing he talked about where his convictions and that was in the pot that was only in the context of my motion for a  that your point was that they were dragging a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't sell and this man would fall into that category and the judge said well what about this conviction for this marijuana which involved a substantial amount of marijuana and then perhaps sarcastically but pointed out that probably wasn't all for personal consumption so the judge had that in his mind at the very least i think there are two things with respect to that first of all would i would like to point out in with respect to your question and that's the whole problem that's the thirty two rules thirty two issues that i bring up the government argued that in response to be saying he was not there was no evidence that he was dealing drugs and there was no evidence at all nothing in the present report nothing the government provided but the government at sentencing argued that he was already a he was a drug dealer and that he was actively selling drugs they said i know if he relied on that back and if he did rely on that fact that would that is that is unfair inappropriate and that is prejudice to rely on a back when there's absolutely no proof whatsoever would be prejudiced defendant never asked the court to resolve that under rule thirty two i would say first this is a plain error review of because there was no objection under the first prong cleaner there isn't any error because we don't have a real tissue the facts here what we have  dispute about the spin that should be put on the undisputed facts in the p s r before you assume that can you back up and tell us why you think it's play in error and when a defendant has an obligation to object under rule thirty two at the end of the sentencing defense counsel have an obligation to say at the end of the sentencing or some time before it was over judge we object you did not honor rule thirty two as required and therefore then the district court can say oh i guess they didn't let me address dispute here you didn't rule out that i'd like you to take that back and go back through on that you or say that you're not taking it into account in your sentence and the court could easily have done that at that point that would provide that's having to be here arguing about it now  fine or well because i don't think that the defendant has carried his burden under play in error to show that the court would have resolved that question in his favor if he wanted to be if he was there any evidence if he was well the evidence that he was not a dealer before is that he doesn't have a prior conviction for do you have one my question dr i understand that are to prove a negative was there any evidence that he was prior well there are certainly valid inference a strong inference you can take from the facts that were before us if you was able at basically one day's notice to come up with eighteen hundred dollars of methamphetamine he had a prior conviction for an amount of marijuana that was not consistent with personal use how much was it between fifty and two thousand pounds ok so the court i think right was skeptical that this was his first rodeo he also lacked any consistent legit i'm a source of income and if you take all of the facts together at that undercut defendants argument that here in in explaining sentence and mention the defendant's criminal history and said that there was a good amount of drugs involved and then said that his it had considered the thirty five fifty three a factors found the guideline range in this case to be reasonable that is extremely similar to the explanations given by the district courts that were found to be sufficient  there should be no error here whatsoever but if there were any it certainly couldn't be playing under those cases and would you agree with the marriage counseling aspect of the probation or the you know you get married or pa charts for the government agrees that the district court could not order the defendant to get married but as a district court later explained in response to the marriage to put in that night and gentleman none of that is in the guide line or the statute that you are to go down and open an account whatever that means because these children are out of wedlock and he's only putative father presumably there to be blood testing everything else all of the guidelines in the statutes say we're going to make it a condition of your supervised release that you honor any child support orders right and that's not what the district judge did here i think in the in the written judgment it does become clear that what the court is doing is ordering him to comply with any child support obligations so if there is no child support order then he's got nothing to comply with any and has nothing to worry about   supervised release and i don't think the court said you've got to comply with any i think the courts and you need to get married or you pay child support so it but my impression  was i can put up with this instance that that the guidelines are a little broader than simply saying you can order compliance with existing child support i think the guidelines are broader than that so you can vagueness question when we got plenty of all this is conditions for supervised release have to be precise so here we don't know what court he would go to if he's not got that domestic litigation who would who would order it and how much and as you said paternity and and everything else i mean it just seems a plus a fact that it is hard to relate that to this crime at all it might be related to the characteristic of this defendant but it was made no effort to say direct all pleadings to the attention of the new judge that didn't happen here just out of personal experience i have had cases that have required additional attention after the visiting judge had done initial sentencing hearing and those have been handled by judges in the district know i absolutely properly preserve these issues i don't know what else i could have done and if you think there's something else they could have done i hope you write in your opinion of me clear because i felt like this is the most preservation i never got in a motion to get back to