the honorable the united states court of appeals for the st circuit is now in session all persons having any business before this honorable court may give their attendance and they shall be heard god save the united states of america and this honorable court court is in session good morning counsel and good morning to everyone just before we begin judge thompson and i would like to welcome judge who is sitting with us today and thank you for lending your talents to this proceeding judge is the psychological trauma to zation that resulted from all those actions which unlike the physical acts that went on really didn't cut both ways really only reflected a serious and permanent diminishment of the person who stood before the court  really understood it as this person was transformed radically and severely diminished manner for the man he did on the day was rested for this crime given that the magnitude of eat personal transformation in a the arguments that part it makes and then sort of deduces from all of those things the judge is rationale what our position is that the requirements have been explained sends really comes in to the fullest force in cases sense so that's really our what we feel the judges have us did discuss the facts of what happened to her but did not really fully address in her sensing rationale the trauma they endured it was really i mean you know one of the sourcing of it and even that there is evidence that he had participated in prior runs for this organization i thought the government made a comment to the effect that this wasn't her operation it was clear it wasn't her operation and even in that sentence again memorandum the government took the other than to act as a translator no no but that we the point is you refer my point is really referring strictly to whether he was on notice you say this was sprung on him by the judge at sentencing and i'm suggesting to places where it facts should be addressed between joe and solace the government does but he was very clear in the p s r that that issue is constantly being addressed when he out that she is serving as an interpreter for him that rules that they play in the conversations are exclusively her into this broader into this i mean across the country suggesting that or it's real concern was that he exposed her to danger and therefore couldn't really claim that he was simply you know he was the bottom of the heap he was a courier who had done nothing to engage this in our brief but i'll just reiterate it briefly is as defense argues this does go to the question perhaps of specific deterrence deterrence is only one of the several considerations judge was clearly struck by the seriousness of the crime the specify everything it's considering and with respect to the trauma the court clearly did in arts clearly or clearly believed in some sense it was outweighed by other information and the court was clearly swayed two or three by the fact that and what the government knew from other sources said information about his prior involvement it wasn't the same and he said other things that led made them skeptical that his story was entirely credible so he indicated that they shot him in two different places i mean would that have been something that medical examination would have been able to determine if that was true yes and one of the things that the government pointed out in cross examining the witness at  sentencing hearing was that your example there was a lot of stuff about dental injuries but no dental records were provided and medical records information that could have verified some of this wasn't made available and that was again the defense burden to show if  do doesn't have further questions we rely on our remainder and ask the court for one minute let me just give my colleagues a chance if they want to ask questions i'm fine thank you all right thank you