united states vs many whether mr edwards was familiar with the criminal justice system he'd been convicted of a theft offense in arizona state court in the early one nine hundred ninety s it was the result of a crime that occurred during the savings and loan crisis and as a result he spent two days in jail and he owed the f d i c in excess of three million dollars in restitution judgment but clearly that did not providing specific terms to him he moved to montana and within six years had not only be false statements to banks but he had concealed the fact that he had trust during course of bankruptcy he had concealed the fact in the trust that he owned stock options that had become very valuable in fact during the course of the bankruptcy in excess of four hundred thousand dollars worth of value on that record we had an initial sentencing hearing in two thousand and four the government argued at the time that sense in hearing that the thirty five fifty three a factors were significant and needed to be considered the government also argued anything below the low  guideline range would be an adequate sentence in the low end of the guideline range is calculated by the government that time was twenty seven months at the time of the original sentencing booker hadn't been handed them correct but blakely had in the three judge panel and am on strike emmeline on back opinion correct and we do that and you did it but the went back to the judge and the judge said well you know i know it now knowing that the guidelines are what i do reading this time combs calls is not binding here limited to it's pretty unique circumstance and that's certainly my position and i think it's important for this court to go back not only the language that says in the initial  that the course in this case view this position that you must have that opportunity well our position is that actually we believe this is one reasonable sentence we believe it would be very useful for this court just say may be unreasonable but those that have an opportunity court at this time of a below the guideline range sentence the record is relatively well developed we know he's a recidivist you know he was convicted of major fraud we know from the offer proof filed by the government that he not only made false statements to a bank but he also failed to was a reason why you could there was you know your honor it's part and parcel of the argument that i've been trying to make as you want to get is that i want i want i believe that this court could help practitioners and district courts a great deal if it took the facts in this case and appropriately calculators what that calls for if you take that method of analysis that is a very man to the reasoning and to start all over from the get go and certainly the government seeks really matter but the record in this case is really i think different than some of the other been down this road the parents sent it back to the court didn't have or sensing hearing at that time the court was told balance the thirty five fifty three factors the government would say it should be remanded to be at that time the guideline should be calculated but proceeding but the government says there isn't any possible way that by ignoring the loss and ignoring the fact that there were multiple victims you can end up with a just sentence so that's all if you read the sentencing memos and take a look at the transcript of the offer we did i did you good morning i'm john rhodes from the missoula office of the federal defenders of montana i represent don't get at words at the outset i want to correct something that the government they said that this case is somewhat at odds with montgomery montgomery's says that before a court just report issues its am a line we man responds to this court to help this court term in the plane air review that written submissions from the party have to be solicited district court required to consider the amount that is was admitted by your client saying in response to the offer that the government believes they've got evidence to show that the amount of loss was four hundred thousand plus why in their circumstances shouldn't the government are given the opportunity to lay that out all that well  two to be allowed to do that in which it has never happened in this case three responses first i just went through a market where you've written submission to the just record and you can submit in writing your case to explain to the court why it should convene a resurfacing herrick second the district court has received all that information at the original sentencing as the government's explained all that information was in the p f starr was also able to way to raise new issues that have not been raised before so you know stop and think about it for a minute if the defendant had on appeal raised a number of issues challenging the guideline calculation we send it back for an a that when you get to reasonable in this review with the first step in the analysis is to go back in to see if the guidelines were appropriately calculated as part of the first inquiry into whether the sentence is substantive reasonable if there's an error in the guideline calculation or cantrell you send it back for correct terminations of the guidelines and then when that's all done properly then you come back and you ask the question was the sentence reasonable and you fully informed of the government's argument which i believe it already has been because that's the government presented its argument in through the p s r and at the sensing hearing but if the government wants to fully inform if there's more to tell the district court they can influence the calculation issue in the first instance so i think was very clear that this was more than merely nam one remain at the expect the court to do that balancing test as to the offer proof the excerpts of record page fifty seven the government in the proof that the government would have had had we gone to trial or to be given the opportunity in the sentencing hearing and you told the court what you thought you could do what you thought you could certainly and we have not had that opportunity in this post booker environment but as i was arguing initially in terms of this many whether book or line of cases the fact that we have many weather out there with a very different factual situation without its founder without a criminal history without the kind of magnitude of fraud in two separate instances it would be extraordinarily helpful for bad clarification for both the practitioners in the district court and combs there are all sorts of different reasons but i think com really isn't applicable here it's not just that the government you know it works argue to thirty five years to get a factors in both before the district court and the initial appeal but the guidelines were calculated in columns in fact at twelve ninety five the panel's opinion notes