statutory maximum term of imprisonment and her reasons for the upward variance judge rosen stengel but compared the resulting eighty four month term of imprisonment to the fifteen year mandatory minimum which mr manager would have had under the aren't career criminal act she also just wrote a single also echoed or an argument which counsel for the government had m about how mr magic or gore did this on account of application of the i categorical approach in judge rosen stengel in her reasoning for the awkward variance i commented on the structure of the found in a car with a gun with passengers who smelled of marijuana and drew from that that mr match its purpose went beyond the criminal purpose of simply possessing a fire a convicted felon but in her words she was begging for something dangerous something violent to happen we believe that this is an reasonable speculation think that is what she was doing because she did at this point of her explanation for the variance say that she was disagreeing with with me on what could be drawn from those facts i uncontroverted that george imagine if he told the arresting officer that he was in that car with the occupants in order to drive to a gas station to buy alcohol and that was never challenged that appeared at  paragraph nine of the p s r and that's in the sentencing transcript at page eight so we don't have someone present to the admitting that they're going to commit a robbery they're going to do a carjacking they're going to do anything else and if areas they're doing something that millions of americans do drive to a gas station to buy alcohol and it's our contention that there's nothing about those facts they would support the inference that there was something more vibrant going on here time not too long before this to somebody yes your honor he had a two thousand and fourteen conviction for attempted aggravated battery with a firearm and that was on the heels of a two thousand and nine conviction for aggravated batter somebody else with a baseball bat could only point is that i read the judge to be sane and and look what we have here he's out driving around in a car while on probation with him with a loaded gun and this is this is not a good trend and and therefore that was one of the reasons that we wanted you know the the eighty four month sentence above the top and the guideline range it was not she did not say i think they were on their way to commit a violent crime they were going to hold up a liquor store or anything like that she just said that the trend line here is not a good one well in order she definitely did not speculate about any specific other crime that might have been in the offing but she did use the language that he was begging for something dangerous or something violent to occur by riding around in a car with people smoking marijuana and that would be the basis for our claim that once under reasonable speculation obviously there's something criminal going on there there's something going on there that no none of us w that as a convicted felon especially one with george magic's history riding around with a gun course that criminal history was reflected partly in the criminal history category which is category three but even more so in the view and invites objections i defendant's failure to raise a specific objection to the sentence in those circumstances can amount to waiver of the issue and in this case there were two separate colloquy as that occurred during the sentence where in the defendant or appellant could have raised a contemporaneous objection and failed to do so specifically there was a point after the court announced a tentative sentencing decision where the government made an oral motion to add a condition of supervisor at least that being the condition of mental health treatment or an evaluation having to do with anger management issues the court was open to that oral motion for the additional condition of supervise release and at that point in time that signified that the court was open to commentary on the sentence before the formal imposition of sentence additionally later in the sentencing hearing the court asked both parties whether there was any reason why the sentence should not be imposed stated and also asked the parties whether either party requested further elaboration of the thirty five fifty three a factors and both parties indicated no the court is the last inherently dangerous then the circumstances of this case so i don't think that there was any error plain or otherwise with the district court's assessment of the nature and circumstances of this case and in a parent's brief the seven words that they focused on is when the court and gauged and this commentary that maybe a parent wasn't out shooting a gun but driving around in a car with a loaded weapon with three people who are smoking marijuana is begging for something violent or dangerous to happen said repeatedly that that atrocious criminal history was not sufficiently capsulated by the guideline range that was calculated and she talked about again that aggravated battery at the age of sixteen where in the apparent stab someone the chest and for essentially offense conduct indicating he shot someone three times but not before choking his girlfriend and pointing a gun to her head for which he received probation and the court repeatedly emphasized how how poorly appellant had done online supervision repeated violations of the law to include illegal weapons offenses and when she was not in the illegal weapons offense and i'm talking about an aggravated unlawful use of a weapon conviction for which the apparent receive no points because that statute was later found to be unconstitutional but at the time he received that conviction he was in fact a convicted felon so had that charge been charged in the alternative und different illinois statute you would have received points bumping him up a category for criminal history from a category three up to a category four and the court specifically mentioned that had he received permissible for the court to do under the policy statement contained and united states sentencing guidelines for a one point three the court on a can consider varying upwards where a criminal history category substantially under represent s the criminal history of the offender and the likelihood to reoffend that's exactly what she did so with respect to that upward variance that was really i think in reading the transcript more tied to that policy statement guideline in reaching its upward variant sentence and this court said in that case for her to stand that it's not as though the court used the first degree murder guideline in calculating the offense level the analogy made the judge  as providing additional clarity and kind cretinous to her upward variance in addition to hinting to the policy guideline and united states act guidelines for a one point three so again there was no error let alone a pla first point in rebuttal is that policy statement in the guidelines cannot support the operative variance because judge rosen stangl explicitly disavowed it as a basis for that secondly and he's not that's not harsh reality but of course it makes these procedural protections all the more vital and that's what i'm relying on here this morning and finally in re the most important of these procedural protections as they apply to george magic is route fifty one of the federal rules of criminal procedure as explained in our research we believe this is what makes the novo review which normally applies to procedural errors a pluggable here and i think i can best illustrate that by addressing the two questions asked by the court towards the end of the hearing in reverse order first i was asked if you were quest further elaboration on my consideration of the statutory factors at that point judge rosen tangle had early explained her reasoning i believe that she had ruled and of course that fall squarely within subsection upward variance should be imposed i've been arguing in fact for the low end of the guideline range a term of fifty seven months so consequently i had preserved any claim of there under one of the two ways