thank you thank you good morning morning emper with witnesses it's the government's burden to prove a specific intent and bison by agreeing that that they hadn't meant that burden or at least not objecting that being taken out but then doing it variants on a quote head and so if you affirm that in tell the district judge that it's ok to proceed that way you are giving a roadmap and in fact incentivize so you the judge you just not person for two reasons st of all i don't think the guideline range adequately takes care of the possibility of recidivism and secondly i think frankly the whole the totality of the circumstances facing reason is that there's this enhanced when they could apply but everybody agrees doesn't apply so but i'm going to increase it because of that i think that's problematic now your hon certainly the judges able to say i have a policy disagreement there are allowed to say they're allowed to do that but that but that's not what judge darrow said here she didn't say i have a policy disagreement with slightly disagree with the premise of your question your honor in that clearly the judge can look to the guidelines to help explain  judges do that quite often but want to book where we fell the judge and do you feel she went wrong is to say that an inherently gets applied to filing a legal objection to it everybody agrees the legal saying he was the equivalent of a criminal history category or we think was just she didn't point anything that supported the magnitude of that there and if i could i'd like to reserve the rest of my time very good thank you  making an argument that the analogies to the guidelines are problematic in this case and when you look at the record that argument really just doesn't hold water the court here recognize that the guidelines range was calculated correctly and  mentions the fact that the defendant has sort of gotten a general instruction and he has meant under three c one point two for his conduct in fleeing the car into the house and engaging in a standoff with police and she noted that sue believed that there were multiple she also went on to discuss the obstruction of the witness tampering insurance i think it was the court trying to create a fair sentence that didn't create disparities with other sentences when you look at the conduct in this case in terms of his obstruction at a particular gracious he had a phone call with his mother where they discussed one of the women who had sat at changing her story he told his mother to see if she can get the she could get the other if it hit her so she else could get the other out witness to also change her story and then his mother told him basically that she had a handle and she didn't want to talk about this over the phone knowing that they were being recorded that evidence of obstruction and in addition to the other threats made against witnesses and the other problematic statements he made in jail phone calls if nat's legally qualified his instruction it was certainly so appropriately she had analogized that he was more appropriately in a criminal history had a great of or for the purpose for the purpose of sentencing as i noted earlier she talked about this incredibly alarming period of tw explanation and the fact that it was grounded partially in an analogy to the guidelines was really an attempt by the district court to make sure that she didn't create sentencing disparities and that she was adequately able to take into