support the family yes trying to transfer this this been reduced to nine years now right this case yes well for nine years he's going to be locked out making license plates or whatever and doesn't have much contact with the family so this is are the objectives of the statute matter on the reduction or not well into the district court making finding on those you know that you're out of the district time that the caretaker can be away from the family member in the family member can still survivor's family if you're dealing with an extended family in a sense you know we have some very young children well not actually right in this case at the time the defending is released his three oldest children would be twenty three twenty i'm talking about an extended family scott brothers or others in the u s in jail for a longer sentences th someone who's irreplaceable to provide guidance which my position would be that's not enough there's nothing to support an analysis that there is not an irreplaceable caretaker or guide or for the c  terms and in a culture where women and children are perhaps more dependent on this male think airport protection i think that's what you need to be arguing down that road is finding other circumstances like this could be extraordinary is then it's a very common for the finance to have children even several children have some sort of family that cares about them and then we get in a situation where or usual circumstance well i think you ought to respect that that's reading an awful lot into the court's findings through the court indicated in transcript that it came to the hearing and not inclined to depart and what happened of at the hearing was the court heard from two  reason for the departure and my i mean here is that the way in which the departure was made here sort of revealed the fact that this is not your place called the caretaker situation it's a situation of simply and the other family member actually had a heart problem like terrible problems they were in need of care for that would be a factual sort of question here the facts are not in dispute the question is whether the facts that were before the  honor i think i'll start off with the court's moments difficult question with regards to this matter and whether that question appears to be whether the departure appropriately protect the family members from impact of the defendant incarceration that but can you apply a little common sense to the problem what kind of man who's in jail ninety years do not support a family that's out on the loose well he's locked up for nine years i think it goes back to the question of how it how is he irreplaceable he has been and the head of the family then your honour's and recognized is a large family full of twenty people he has emotional support and financial support eight point where his emotional support is needed back in the home to take care and perhaps try out during a sentence emotional support from some of the women in the family but that he would be needed close call and that if she was basing her decision in large part to his role with regards to his family and his extended family she indicated that this would not be a departure that she would grant for his brothers he is the oldest brother in this large family was responsible based upon his role and in his community at as a leader as the patriarch of the entire family in the district court did recognise that she didn't make any findings and that she did not make  out of fact she just found out and said well he plays a central role in the family and central role is just doesn't strike me as being so out of the ordinary i happen to think that every parent his role in the extended family and that this would not be a departure that would be allowed for other members of his family i would like to go back to one point though with regards to whether this needs to be a free fall departure range down to seventy to eighty seven months and the court recognized well in that case the defendant mother was facing prison and there was an eight year old son in the father died while she had been incarcerated the court decided to depart largely based upon her emotional role in the child's life i think the idea that it protects the family it's important from  responsibility the defendant has for each of the family members the role in everyday life whether others could replace the defendant or whether the absence of the defendant would require the family to go on public assistance i think those factors considered would a extraordinary i believe that here the magnitude of the defendant's responsibilities such that it would have taken it out of the heartland of cases and would have made him the quote unquote irreplaceable caretaker of th defendant what was the glue here he she kept the entire family together and one of the similarities there also is that injured far there were several defendants that were family members in the court consider that shoes of the offended and make such he was irreplaceable caretaker and there is one other issue i'd like to address and that was the supplemental filing that we had regarding likely here because the standard here is you irreplaceable does hinge upon mostly rational circumstances as far as we can see it really it's a standard that can be set out that but really each case has to be looked at on a fact by fa as we're concerned and you know it is our position that the district court was in a far better position to review these this case there were thirty eight defendants truce for miliard with these types of cases and significant experience with all these defendants and i think that she was probably in a better position to make that judgment and with regards to blakeley argument would be that  likely is currently up on an appeal through booker and fanfan argument is that this court sitting in review of the district court's departure in effect turns it on it has its head in actually because of the could be if we were in a world in this case but we are talking about the kind if i had actually made the argument that he was a character maker for one of the children in the court was making a factual determination hearing from the child and perhaps a doctor to determine whether this was real or not this time it was a caretaker and whether he was irreplaceable that would be a circumstance where the district court is making a factual determination of whether the situation is extraordinary here we're not in that landscape the court has heard from children court not consider it wasn't part of the record i think i had no knowledge of it prior to this point and i would ask that it not be part of your consideration