thank you for our good morning in the united states versus gaul the supreme court explained that an adequate explanation from the district court for a sentence allows for may i say something the district court said you may he struggled to get words out and basically said why and it's a joke now his words may have been improper and particularly the last com but his exchange with the district court really crystallized the argument that is here on appeal today after having given no explanation other than a rote recitation of the sources he had considered and the statutory language the district court merely repeated looking at the nature and circumstance of the offense the history and characteristics of you i think the ninety four month sentence is appropriate this recitation would apply to literally every defendant before district court but it would explain nobody's particular sentence as this core pointed out in lyons and several cases with a remarkably consistent strain of law the sentence just plain for the district court should explain why a particular sentence for a particular defendant so if one references the nature and circumstances  offense it's important to say what nature or this what circumstances the offense the history and characteristics of the defendant it's important to specify what history and what characteristics importantly in this case the district court had actually noted during the sentencing hearing that due to a change in judge there was actually very little familiarity with the nature and circumstances of the offense  there was another reference to a previous judge's sentence that said perhaps just got it right but that reference then proceeded to essentially reject the reasoning from that previous sentence the importance of explaining why the district court winds up at a particular point is even more important when the sentence is near the top end of the guidelines and mr softeners cases guidelines were seven our principal argument in mitigation was that since the time of his two thousand and seventeen original sentencing he had engaged in a good deal of good not just good behavior while in v o p he had also taken over twenty courses for self improvement to deal with some of the very specific things that judge bruce had reactance at that st sentencing the district court did not explain any factoring of whether that mattered to him or whether that did not matter to him perhaps the only explanation we saw was you're not entitled to the same variance you didn't say i think these courses were important for my sentence or i'm sorry your courses do not represent weren't even one day if you are on your sentence so essentially we are at the point where we have no idea why the district court imposed that particular sentence  other than the fact that he reference or that he reviewed sentencing commentaries arguments and certain statutory stories of theirs and i will just say one of the things that was a challenge for me as a district judge was trying to explain sentences under three thousand five hundred and fifty three a when you have congress adopting purposes of sentencing that are essentially all of the above when it comes to sentencing philosophy we want to deter we want justice certs we want to rehabilitate we want to reflect seriousness of the offense we want to protect the public we want everything and often those instructions are values point in opposite directions in a case so i guess i'm i'm i'm wondering aloud how subject such decisions are to reason the explanation yes your honor this court's been very clear that a district court does not have to say much but there has to be something and you're supposed to as a judge what i understand the cases such as a supposed to explain everything that's not obvious to people who who are familiar with the case if it is obvious one need not belabor that but in this case it is not obvious why good behavior over about eighteen months and very concerted efforts at self improvement did not warrant a half an hour or less in jail or a day less in jail  debates about the categories categorical treatment of particular prior crimes is doesn't actually change any facts when you go back before the district court and the government is flexible and i think it well with regard to calling it a windfall at the district court i said when fall to one person is just the constitutional interpretation of the courts or another way and while the facts did not change in the transcript of the sentencing hearing the district court at the twenty eight thousand dollars hearing said i'm not particularly familiar with those facts so it doesn't appear at least on the face of those words that the district court was relying on those facts as they were stated the st hearing or the nd here further judge bruce had specifically discussed and went into the ninety page transcript discussing how the guidelines played in to his in the original eighty four month sentence and he basically said i'm very much shortening it i'm starting at a base level which incorporates the two prior crimes of violence and i'm adding about same reasoning one would have expected that that reduction of two or four level reduction would have made a difference so whether the facts changed or not it didn't appear that the same analysis had been applied to  good morning your honour's may it please the court my name is rachel rights are on behalf of the united states and imposing sentence in this case the district court committed no error the court both corporately considered the defendant's arguments in mitigation as well as sufficiently explained the reasoning for its with and guideline sentence that was imposed in this case briefly i would like to start responding to the defense counsel's heavy reliance on the initial sentencing judge's reasoning  initial sentencing court granted on that striking and the so called striking enhanced men under the guidelines was not due or owed to the defendant in the nd set re sentencing the defendant claims that in his brief that shuki arguments in mitigation were not addressed or insufficiently weighed by the district court and imposing sentence st the so called striking enhancement under the guidelines and nd the post convention rehabilitation  striking enhanced meant the court was simply not required to address that at all at sentencing this was a categorical or blanket objection to the guidelines as they applied that the defendant simply felt that the striking enhanced it was unfair that it was too severe he had no contentions that it somehow did not or should not apply to him in fact there was no objection to big strike and enhancement and described in the p s r because it was this blanket objection the district court had no obligation to address and as this court has held multiple times additionally it was simply not a principle argument mitigation by the defendant it was minimally referenced in the sentencing commentary filed by the defendant prior to the sentencing hearing minimally referenced by that the defendant counsel during arguments and the defendant himself and his allocution the defendant and frankly the district court did clearly consider this it simply rejected that argument the district court who noted the completed courses that the defendant had taken but stated him to continue taking the courses and specifically stated that he would and that the defendant would appear back before that court or a different war in the trench the only remark the government can rely on for the proposition to the government believes make it make it clear that the court did not quite buy this argument that the defendant had somehow rehabilitated himself during his time in custody and you know he  the in the house courses who are on he thought the in house courses had to continue and they had to continue so he continued to make progress but the chill brothers drummer stretched to say the provided whereas this defendant just report had a back and forth with the defendant during sentencing and the court in lyons even frankly failed to even say the that phrasing correctly that it was greater than that it was not greater than necessary this and here you could you could we can all make distinctions on fact but those cases stand for the proposition that you're going to take a factor into consideration you have to give sufficient reason why he should encourage him to reflect further on the strength of the officer and his actions in order to avoid that in the future and frankly the defendant himself demonstrated that that fear of recidivism the course is frankly not that the that it that the defendant did not agree with the sentence and felt somehow that it was own or do that same variance that was granted by the initial sentencing court judge judy do you have anything to say about in front of me take slight issue with the government's characterization of our argument and relying heavily on the original sentencing rely heavily lions on the cases that say that there needs to be an explanation that we do not understand based on the transcript of the exchanges in that hearing why the sentence was imposed as it was