in august of twenty sixteen august first twenty sixteen for very similarly situated young people including my client mr campbell made the foolish decision around the pharmacy in waukee upon arrest each of them gave a statement admitting their involvement and they eventually all either cooperated or offered to cooperate with the police and they all eventually pled guilty proceeded to sensi where became apparent to mr campbell that the government would be seeking a higher sense for him than any of his three co defendants he found the sending memorandum presenting two principal sending arguments in support of his requested sentence for the minimal sense of seven years in the day and so they would be one day on the robbery which is allowed under dean plus the seven years required on the one twenty four c count for a total sentence of seven years in a day  so what's the argument that there was really a disparity here within those factors for clothes and he claimed disparity i don't believe so we are because what we we recognize a difference in cooperation we recognize the difference in roles in the offense and our argument was not withstanding those differences or despite those differences that the court should still not in polls too much of a disparate sentence and keep in mind the court no matter what it would have done here harry impose a sense nine months or one day longer than for either doesn't case in this circuit preclude the argument that there is a disparity is the reason for the reduction is cooperation and his his criminal history category was different as well and also the fact that it was below the guidelines i don't it precludes it i think clearly a church family would have said look the reason i don't want to impose a similar sentence here is because he ultimately didn't cooperate or i think that his role is as a beta because he did go in to the pharmacy with the other two then you know yes i think that would have you know made it so that we don't have an issue here on appeal but i think if he's precluded from doing that by seven thirty case law i think the case law clearly says differences of cooperation can be a reason for this very point is that i wasn't saying i was sorry i wasn't me to say that he was precluded from giving a lower sentence what i'm saying is that you know it was the differences were pretty clear they was the only one who didn't cooperate he was given a below guideline sentence the same fifteen months that you know two of the others had gotten on the robbery portion of it so what i'm saying is it seems fairly obvious why that miller did give him a lower sentence you know like like it like it's co defendants so i'm just questioning why judge that you know there had to address that argument as explicitly as you would have liked want my response there would be because we went to pains in our sending memo to say despite again the differences in cooperation in the other things here is why you should still give the census as close together as you can and not have this disparity and we specifically referenced i believe the stat months on count two and he says i appreciate you're not public enemy number one and but then he goes through very specific facts i don't see anything in this transcript to suggest that he's not taking into account what did what he just sentences but he comes up with ninety nine months i'm not sure where the procedural problem is and failing to address the principle argument he does  a lot of legitimate factors under thirty five fifty three no doubt but he never got his comments are kind of contradictory here because on the one hand he says you know i recognize eighty four months is a very significant sentence for a young man t offenses and so i think that that's kind of introductory that he seems to recognize seven years could be enough here but yet he still decided to tack on another fifteen months on the underlying crime again despite our express expressed arguments in the detour into history a couple of pages later he's just talking about the series deterrence protecting the public he's balancing all of this stuff and he says i think he needs fifteen months on count alone is a significant sentence which is what we were arguing was more than enough in this situation and that being would allow him to go that low should he choose to but that's where i can't find anything where he says but i'm not allowed to do that you know i just see  recognize and seven years is a long sentence but then he does go on you know you can't really stop before he says but by the same token for you to have about why this is a serious social problem to address your question judge barrett this is on page four of our sensory memorandum appendix page eleven i say the government will probably argue that disparate sentences are justified because other three d brief by mr campbell did that but this court should not find that to be a compelling argument for the following reasons when i'm on the next page is where i start to with these different reasons and again the main ones are the timing of the arrests are beyond my client's control he gets well he was given an opportunity to come in and then he damaging choice that we that's a separate issue that we have present happy to talk about that we have this fifth amendment issue the court gets wrong i believe based on what the government recited and i put this on page ten and eleven of my reply brief the time line is not how they make it sound keep move mindset after the police try to reach out to him it's unrelated to the police reaching out to him he has no knowledge of this arrest warrant that's on the sealed case on the computer then they would doesn't come out until october twelfth he doesn't move still for six weeks after that  opportunity to cooperate i don't know if i ever said slowly but it was a factor that bed decreased the value of his cooperation it was out of his control that jones and jackson to rest almost immediately white i think a couple days later and then and then my client because the different things i lay on page ten eleven  are months later so i think it was part of it and again that was one of the arguments that we really went to a blank to lay out for judge stanley to say despite this despite him waffling despite these differences in cooperation we still feel that nine months in a day more which is the lowest he could have gone nine months maybe higher than jackson and jones is is not warranted here and he passes over that in silence he doesn't address that he doesn't address again the other mitigating argument that we made the main one was under dean all his personal mitigating factors calls by itself or the minimum sentence here is young age lack of a violent record good work history he showed remorse all of that stuff again by itself i think justify what we're asking for he passes over most of it in silence so this isn't a case where we're saying that judge stanley didn't understand i guess dean or didn't earth thought he was precluded from doing certain things it was just he passed over all these and silas despite prominent presentation in our memo i'll save remaining roughly one hundred about three quarters of a million ok fine mr proctor for whatever reason and that work that didn't work out in his favor and also in you i think at this point it's conceded that he's one of the robbers of this pharmacy so he gets called in august decides not to come in so even if it is a couple of months later when he leaves wisconsin for south carolina and he's aware that he robbed pharmacy and it's other people are being prosecuted yes or you may not know that there's an active rest for it out on him but error aspect that i raise in my brief is that assuming mr campbell made this unwarranted disparity argument which i don't believe he did at a minimum that wasn't a principle argument the only he can to one sentence of the sentencing periphery things that the government's going to where he uses the word desperate but his main arguments were there's a lot of factors in my background and things that you should consider in giving a lower sentence but those facts do not that they were questionable they were questionable with regard to you know could he have cooperated he had the opportunity cooperate and he did and so that gets back to unwarranted disparities and the disparities are only unwarranted if you're similarly situated mr canales acknowledge that he wasn't similarly situated the others cooperated he did not and judge stetler census posed across the three robbers who went in to the store reflects this they all received fifteen months for the robbery itself the other two received sixteen months on the one twenty four charge because the of the government's motion to remove the mandatory minimum the government didn't file a motion in mr campbell's case and he was sentenced to eighty four months on that count moving on to the dean argument mr campbell is arguing essentially that an experience judge like judge that miller didn't understand discretion that he had seen had been out for more than two months and it's there's nothing in the record indicating the judge then really didn't understand his discretion no reason no particular argument that dean anyway is there i mean i didn't it an actual discussion of well now we're free to have you know the the camp to eighty four months plus only one day which of course this court had said you couldn't you know it was a dean was a change in the law for us but i didn't see that thrashed out no that's correct judge tabular didn't address dean in this particular case but whether or not the question is whether or not he misunderstood his discretion there's nothing in the record that indicates he didn't understanding it had been out for two inference here that is a fact of the case mr and it goes directly in response to mr camp mr campbell's argument that it's but for this arbitrary timing of arrests i would have come in judge i would have cooperated you should you should give me a took off the government in its letter that i think this is a record documentary fifty two he says of the police spoke to campbell by phone asking to come in and answer some questions because his name came up in an investigation like the august twenty third or whatever that was unrelated to him being contacted by the police and to get to your honor's question or yes i mean he knew it at that point he robbed the pharmacy i don't think there's anything in the record to support that he knew others were being prosecuted for this and so i don't think that that's a fact that can be relied upon in the record