this mandatory or is it not mandatory all along it's been said it's been mandatory and what happened here was that the defense presented timely objections both to a letter objection to factors or yes does that mean that if we disagree with you about all thirty two that we do not need to consider the remaining two ar the first one you did not wonder as to as you do not need to consider because that is contingent on rule thirty two or however the personal factors argument is a separate argument whether or not rule thirty two enters the picture because the sentencing memorandum because it went whether the element should have been but in the indictment but it alternatively did consider your arguments and even if i look at them i don't think we had any worth so why can't we just look at it and see whether he was right or wrong not to disagree with your honor but i think that's why we're that's why we're here the judge made very specific excerpts of record page sixty five that he said that the defendant knew he'd face questions about his prior which under united states versus thomas is totally wrong and secondly he said he was not going to consider the argument period he wasn't going to consider it and wouldn't when he went ahead and did not know what he went to hadn't considered was he couldn't understand why the defendant had received so little time in sacramento and was facing fifty one months in reno but the your you while you didn't write your on the panel for united states versus houston and you said the objection doesn't even have to be clear i mean if they make it very clear at the sentencing hearing that's good enough and what happened here is we did have a change of think the attorney in court i dressed a couple of more issues than just alman doors torres and he talked about the sentencing disparity and that's where the judge was saying well i don't get how come he can get twelve months in you've got that ruling then what's the next next difficulty the next difficulty is whether the district court adequately considered the three five five three factors that and there's also a shepherd argument there so sheppard was not in play and i would like to halt now and reserve my two minutes crime and so based upon all that the judge did in fact that were good part that's right word made a reasonable sentence for ten months the last in the minimum sentence hundred you advice for guidelines of forty six months so i think if you look at all the facts and circumstances of the case possession with intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance that is a drug trafficking offense under federal law so therefore the modified chemical products would not be necessary and the judge's ruling can be upheld thank you because we're talking enhancement not it wasn't used we're not objecting to use for criminal history points for objecting to the characterization of the underlying offense and that was not proven by the government in direct contradiction of family proven to a jury no no no i said the enhancement it is the government's burden to prove any enhancement prove it to the to the sentencing that it qualifies as an enhancement and that's what i meant no no not to a