all these years no longer think it's and i was trying to figure out i think it's about thirty and i can say we're both getting better looking at so i can say well mr of the and i would advise you not to start your argument with a false statement  you may be getting better of a game but the nd part of your statement is it is clearly not correct i recommended to say we're all getting better looking everybody on his family now the st issue i'd like to address i by the defendant himself and the rate of home it was important it was i want to rape of anyone is a terrible terrible point now the government says well of the judge never mentioned it we don't know that it  didn't affect the guidelines and but job the point of rule thirty two is that the judge is supposed to either say i'm not going to consider it ordered make a finding and he did neither so we don't know versus christensen but christensen this is not say that the defendant has to repeat the objections at the sentencing procedure and which which paragraphs of the pre sentence report to the defendant object to in writing things which he had to put it to me basically in writing a check to everything well not everything but he objected to a lot which was is his right i mean he can object to it i demoed no law that says you can't object there's a limit to what you can object to but but  only the defendant raised one at the actual sentencing yes he raised one of the actual sensing that was an important one it was and so putting that for the moment aside though your your to very strongly is it no it was very clear the objection he got she had to make the government argued there were over forty victims it sentencing memorandum depending objected to that the judge had a result that because that c about abortion the judge may have of the jurors may have believed the jurors assigned him time but the judge now would send same we don't know how he reacted to hearing that someone is raising abortion which many people can see up the justification for the sufficient not greater than necessary sentence all objections and included in i'd like to know why you jump to find that satisfactory despite rule thirty two well st of all i don't have i don't know that the record actually stands i'm sure the court has a very accurate i don't have a front of me but in any event the when the when the objection raised to the peers who are saying that the rape of holman did not occur we object to it and then the defendant himself at the sentencing germ his colloquy when and when his this is his final statement to the court pleading for mercy when he says i didn't rape anybody the judge at that point yes at that point the judge has to have a has to say i'm resolving this issue that i was an objection you not going to reach the decision of whether you're a tom and that's what rule thirty two requires one of the other and here though is neither in the face of a specific the nine by the defendant that he had rape toman and a specific the nile by his attorney next i would like to go to be selective enforcement issue only to point out that we have a new law now in this circuit united states versus sellers and we get them in mind in the court records where this isn't a question even if i were even if we were to grant that emotion that was filed in the district court should be looked at as a selective enforcement motion instead of just a prosecution moment yes and moving beyond that for the moment reading zellers the courts we hold that in these stash house reversing cases claims of selective enforcement are governed by a less rigorous standard and that applied to claims of selective prosecution under armstrong and the court makes a statement almost just like that two or three other times so why if we were to reach the question would we hold a seller's applies to every selective enforcement case as opposed but specific holding on the facts of the case was it reversed stache on us but what we look at how the court reason didn't reach that conclusion the court is saying that you have to distinguish prosecutors you mustn't journeys prosecutors their decisions from law enforcement agents to the former we owe this difference they're wonderful people make no mistakes there are perfect but two law enforcement d so even if i agreed with you that we look at the reasons instead of the holding when i read sellers i see them saying the rigorous discovery standard of armstrong doesn't apply strictly to discover your quest in selective enforcement claims like sellers and i read the court talking about how the the circumstances are different where in or her sting operation you're targeting particular people and so even if one looked at the rationale i see the rationale is dependent on the type of case in sellers which the court had a particular type of issue with i understand how i read the case somewhat more broadly and somewhat differently and how a move on to the next issue because i don't know if i'm going to be able to persuade the court system my reading of the case but i do think it can be read more i think it's a fundamental change in the law i think it extends it is a prosecutorial decision but how the agents choose to present the case to the prosecutors if they choose to presented it all to the prosecutors if they choose to go to state court as opposed to federal court all those are unlawful entry into the hotel room into the hotel room is treated as a home under one second law we have the government agent by his own testimony the way i read it having one foot in the door she opens the door  army well i make an argument that he does have standing i believe i'm going to when you expect i'm not going to take the time to go through my brief moment but i know that the district judge found there was initial standing victualling had been completed if you look at the cases i've decided in my brief i believe that they stand for the proposition that the eviction has to have been awfully completed yes these people were supposed to have been out by a certain time yes there may have been a moving beyond gad once they get in the room he sure has standing to object to the way he was treated by wind officers treating a classic takedown of a black man by white officers who put him in and they didn't put his neck in put their neck on it the knee on his neck like they did to floyd recently instead the pushing up against the bathroom wall you hold them there for an hour like he's an animal now this court should not permit it's kind of a lease misconduct in this being an age when everybody is rioting all over the country because the regardless of what this person is accused of doing he should be treated like a human being and not like an animal and the  to rely upon facts that are rested upon his own client's testimony at that hearing those facts however were not what the district court found and although in his reply brief he suggested and in fact appropriate judge hernandez has already answered that question this is a footnote two on page four of the district court's opinion the court made a credibility finding and incorporated that credibility finding into district court found that a new direction was in fact in the process the district court also i think very importantly found that the officers when they knocked on the door had already developed at least reasonable suspicion at that time then because events happened very quickly and also the court found that the officers stayed at the threshold of that door i believe mr levine told this court that the officers and had one foot in the door and there is no evidence in the suggest that despite defense counsel's repeated efforts to get these officers to admit that they entered the room they didn't do sound they stayed at the threshold and judge hernandez found that everything that happened there after w told the officers that he had just been there for about fifteen minutes so in terms of establishing his reasonable expectation of privacy at the time i think we've got a good faith argument that the officers did not believe that mr ford had a good day the expectation of neighbor call it was while they were at the threshold speaking with mr foreigner in this princeton are that teenage emerge from room to eleven and it was at that point when they saw this very frightened looking girl they didn't know if she was a minor the  officers testify that she looked very young that didn't turn then does found then that's when the developed into probable cause for arrest then the only thing that the officer sees from that hotel room that  it was actually admitted at trial was the evidence that was found from mr for its computer that was seized at the time and then search pursuant to a search warrant so that's where and i'm not sure that standing matters so much when the only evidence that was derived from that interaction comes from the computer that was seized one thing had probable cause to arrest which was developed based upon the information that they received from  th unless there are any other questions on the suppression issue i'd like to turn to the sentencing issue and that really is involved what i see is this court's opportunity to perhaps clean up some frayed ends that existed after in as as you're this part of probably aware involved kind of a distinctive situation in which the defendant pleaded guilty to a single count that charged only a sex trafficking conspiracy judgment well if you look at the judgment in this case and it's an e r when seventy five it's a sense as to count one that mr ford was convicted of both sex trafficking conspiracy and sex trafficking  still get to an offense level forty three dollars and a guideline range of life so that and then the alternative the other alternative is you could step aside count one all together and just focus on the sex trafficking count or that's correct there were six named in the indictment and there were six that were addressed extensively in the pre sentence report has recognized that when a defendant objects to everything then the district judge is not then duty bound to spend an entire week going through line by line making fact findings so i think this ju recognized judge hernandez here i think of course he was the trial judge so he sat through the entire round of suppression hearings he heard all of the testimony at trial and he made detail in fact findings on the explanation for his sentence and nowhere does he ever mention either any the abortion that come your printer testified about at trial norman he mentioned th his claim about a rape and of course this case is about sex trafficking mr ford was convicted of multiple counts of sex trafficking and witness tampering there was no suggestion that the court had to find that there was either a rape or that cone your printer had been pushed into an abortion  i would agree with mr levine that if at sentencing judge hernandez were to have said well i'm going to give him a thirty three years because he raped e h then that would be a problem and we would need to have a greater finding but we simply don't have that here and you waited until the appeal to stay got changes fernandez you didn't make a binding even though we have judges to push me everything in the pre sentence report used them how should have been to read it that these issues were more important to us and that's simply not what preservation is designed to do in this court has never held district courts to that kind of an exacting standard unless the court has any through their questions as i reject his testimony or find him unbelievable or i find it incredible he didn't just he didn't discuss it at all and virtually nor be the issue about whether or not there was an unlawful entry into the room the government says there's nothing in the transcript and by the court to my opening brief it big twenty gauge where i messed up on my last paragraph i have the transcript sides to where there is testimony of  court said they have to have at least five they don't have five because i've argued that pain and hoffman were not victims that's in my opening brief that's one of the arguments that they are not qualified victims under th i defined under the statute they were wrong they were offered even under princeton princeton's testimony that she asked them to be come escorts that's her word now escorts men and women have escorts for all kinds of things yes many times that leads to prostitution as an escort and but not necessarily so they bait did not satisfy the statutory term for being victims and only that