morning the st of more than arguably primary argument in this appeal is that the district court views its discretion in st to correctly declining to apply the government's requested two point guideline leadership has been leadership under the advisory guidelines court correctly rejected this argument based on a lack of supporting others based upon a careful analysis of the government's arguments and assertions essentially the court correctly sided with the talent and concluded that the government had give a higher up in control party to greater enhancement it follows the higher up code offenders should then receive harsher sentence sentences that appellant and the acknowledge leader and person in charge of the conspiracy the codependent mr court but it must however set aside a district court substantive determination and an exceptional case where the trial court's decision cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions  applying the leadership in handsome and in doing the guidelines calculation what would we do there you say they're inconsistent and then well initially they're innocent it may be that one is wrong or the other is wrong sufficient to warrant imposing leadership under the as an aggravating factor does it matter that nobody has argued that  factor said that the defendant lied on the witness stand we said there's nothing that precludes a judge from doing that so that's the legal point but on the factual point the reason the judge decided not to give the enhanced it was on to that guy no longer required certain  a detail regarding exactly what you were doing what your decision making was but that so even if that was not there when the government didn't want to prove that there was still information in the t s r went back and looked at paragraph forty paragraph forty six where people viewed him you know as centrally the nd in command so it wasn't some independent thing i'm going to hand your sentence this you know because you're the number two guy was only in response to trying to place him with respect to mr  was based on somebody referring to somebody a nd in command kingpin bloss things along those lines there has to be something substantive about it has to be weighed out of them what it is and we respectfully suggest that the district in the context of the guidelines but the burden of proof is courses the thirty five dollars to see to be a factors which are much broader in terms of what range of facts the district court can consider would say the drug could do that because that would be based on actual either uncontested or submitted evidence and we respectfully suggest that the sections in the pre sentence that the town's referring to and received a twenty month a low guidelines sentence the government asked the court to reject all three of appellants arguments none of which in the government's view are supported by the case law or the record in this case my plan today following mr voltz argument is to address the role issue st and then touch on the other two issues raised in a respect to judge crawford's consideration of the a talent's role in the offense as part of his three thousand five hundred and fifty three dollars a analysis the government's view as your honour's have pointed out already  as to the lunch one issue proffered rejected applying the eighteen to one ratio and also didn't apply a one to one ratio and it's not required as explained even even putting that aside the court here to crawford did consider specifically consider the relative culpability of the defendants which he's permitted to do you know it's not required and  ed the defendant's i think the basis was the criminal history of this defendant who was a five and missed the cruise was a was a two this defendant had pretty deviation guidelines range one hundred and forty to one hundred and seventy five months and is a dramatic difference and the fact that the court nonetheless imposed the same sentences exactly three on these two applies to the acknowledged the fact that my client does have a significant criminal history and the criminal record the court is correct about that i'm not going to try to play games about it but having said that we respectfully suggest that that standing alone that really is what we're talking about that that standing alone does not justify your position of the same sentence that a previous edition range that we're talking about the prior state court record with all of its kind of left to its use that are raised whenever a court as assessing the prior state court record like this does that standing alone just function of that he was required to plead to the nine hundred and twenty four c count in addition to the drug count and your client even though there was a gun in him cement was not did not point to that if you just look at there if you just look at the drug could put aside