jail time in this case however good it district court never considered a departure because it erroneous they wrote that these two prior convictions for the illinois state  the guardian allowed trial truancy counted for criminal history points under section four a one one of the guidelines today we're asking this court to hold that this was an error that under the section under it's highly inconsistently punished and so you know one argument that the government made was that the fact that the leave the defense in this case was brought to happened to like an area of illinois and maybe of the country where the local prosecutor decided that this was a serious problem and decided to prosecute and there is no evidence and and we also see and this is this is lower punishment then you stand for all of the other offenses rested here we also have the fact that this was not a particularly harshly resisting an officer or you know several of the other offenses it's actually it was tied to her addiction and legally while clearly there is some disregard for  legal obligations it cannot be said that this is more blatant or flaunting of the law than something like resisting a police officer appeal for my colleague it's an interesting case but the government believes that the convictions should occur and i think one thing that's important there was discussion about this not being a recurrent her getting a current criminal conduct she did in this particular case i think one thing that's really important about this statute that she violated was that she had to get notice of it first before she could even be charged with it under the elements of the crime guardianship guardian long truancy there has to be  category three probably over represented her dangerous and i think even the government acknowledged that a downward variance was probably appropriate in this case and i think the judge did too as well as  wasn't a case of the government saying you have three parameters the criminal history you are as bad as somebody who has been to prison for x number of years it will be in the same category the government acknowledged that and try to fashion a sentence which the government believed was reasonable taking into account that this might be an overly harsh criminal history territory as far as whether other states treat this as a serious offense or not or other people i guess that's a matter for debate i think and i guess i'm just maybe a little different than most people i think i think it's a very serious offense and these are five and seven year old kids that you are responsible for bringing up in this world and making sure they're responsible citizens and making sure that they have an education to be able to provide for themselves in this world and you've received notice that they're not getting that and you continue to to flop the law and i think what distinguishes it from the nonsupport that's a good question that none of that was raised below obviously the only issue is whether it was true that's that's a very very good question i'm not sure i know that if there is a difference there's a difference  providing for the children think giving them clothes and food and everything else which is crucial but this also is directly affecting the children even more than that because it's preventing them from getting an education  i don't know i understand the courts can you now i just like the government believes well companies both of them are serious but i think when you also when you look at the nonsupport i think the analysis is playing there i don't think that school i don't want to put a number of the number of absences that would then change it from there would say that now it's really serious i would i would suggest that i don't have kids but i soon there's like a hundred eighty day up with a ten year mandatory minimum versus a two year sentence ok i can understand you know the missing llama may not be a serious offense but this is this is a far cry from that this is the government leaders very important and the government again of them but you know fishing without a license is different than not getting your children's school but the i guess the bottom line you know i lost my train of thought oh the bottom line for everything else the truth is you know the government still believes plain er and i think the court has to look at the comparison the nonsupport or there was a statute that i've never even heard of the improper soup supervision statute under the get under the under the rubric of plain air and was this area that was so obvious that judge gilbert had to basically discovered on its own because it was not raised by the defense it was not raised by the government these comparisons and it wasn't so plain first impression the valving this particular statute that the judge should have found it and the government's and it's not if you believe it is there it still has to be plain and obvious and the government doesn't leave the question is the answer to all the thank  you know continued to fail to appropriately supervise her children in terms of getting them to school and therefore these convictions show her in criminal conduct or propensity government's argument relies on looking at things in hindsight and what i believe that task here has to look at is what does the conviction show about some sort of more serious propensity towards criminal conduct and not only you know i mean first of all it doesn't really make sense because someone who made prostitution factions multiple prostitution connected convictions could be said to be more inclined to engage in repeated criminal conduct in terms of you have a propensity to continue to commit prosecution when none of those offenses what counted so just because there's more than one of them should not be a