and a second client is in his sixty's a third client is in the fifty's they haven't all been sentenced to very lengthy terms my client mr farrel is serving a sentence of two hundred sixty two months the clients of the other attorneys here are serving wife with role and who we are here after all re sentencing that was ordered by the court in two thousand and eight for the overarching problem that goes for all three opponents has to do with the calculation of the sentencing guidelines and the court's disregard of the supreme court was requiring do with the situation of carol fleischer the third appellant misspend broke and i as we were putting the argument for mr fletcher together yesterday evening second page of that judgment and therefore the judgment is it isn't even a judgment because the key elements of a judgment include having a signature and  name of the sentencing judge anyway as it was filed on pacer in the district court it has only this one page and as it has appeared in the record here before this court it has only this one page we've discussed this matter this morning with our own and they believe that the record that was actually proffered to judge roberts had the second page and therefore the judge had the full nine hundred seventy seven judgment i don't believe that is so because i think for the most part court judges work off of what is filed on pacer i think although they can pull up the paper records i don't think they necessarily do every time and i would like to ask the court to  a factual finding on the part of judge roberts as to what he believes was actually before him in two thousand and eight and forward as he went to sentence mr fletcher and for further briefing  factual record supports it and has to grow there that is legally sufficient because the one page certainly wouldn't comply with rule thirty two of the federal rules of criminal procedure and it certainly would not comply with the repeat offender statute at twenty one us code eight fifty warden so i want to put aside mr fletcher's for their arguments at this point while we address that threshold point i i very much regret that it was not caught earlier the problem was that the record was just so luminous that each of the attorneys concentrated on their own clients and  of the federal rules of criminal procedure specifies that a judgment must include the charges which the defendant was found guilty or pleaded early argument about this ship and this issue the yes the courts directions i believe it was a different panel there was no directed there was a question about whether whether the repeat offender papers were sufficient the first time this case was before the court and the court said rather than d so i read that issue that is where there are a docket sheet is understand the court's decision and i apologize for a much for being a person who has had to address this case in this way but not only do we counsel not have the second page but the court does not have the second i was out i'm not sure again why that matters imagine there is a second i soon you think there is a second page somewhere or he thinks that the judge never signed is that what you think i think there probably was a second page i think it was probably correctly executed but it was i think it was not before the district court at the time that he declared that these  yes yes that is a written document as to the convictions it intends to rely on that's not the proof of the conviction where's the proof of a conviction the proof of the convictions comes before sentencing a previous convictions and so we went to see which was the written response and the production of evidence of the prior convictions and  we we don't know whether the judge had the full judgement before him i would consider that to be a very profound error or most part only the holiday if you have some reason to think that judge of united states district court for the district of columbia she is an employee of the clerk's office of the district court she handles many criminal matters i have dealt with her dealt with her previously but we know made or at least some of this made the same mistake your honor seemed to be approaching which was to think that perhaps she was the judge and that concluded that and therefore this was a one page judgment but it isn't a one page judgment it's got to have more than one page because it's going to have the signature of the judge it's not the judgment if it doesn't have it sentencing guidelines i recognize that the sentencing guidelines have become advisory rather than mandatory must say they've failed with respect to the mandatory life or you raise an argument from them yes or because there's a statute that required mandatory life why does the guidelines matter with respect to those two i think the six the guidelines to still now to as court put it because of the supreme court will rule out that since we will begin every sentencing with the calculation of the sentencing guidelines one has to understand what the going to lines are the stereotypes are going to be true they're going to be superseded why do you have to understand what the guidelines are the judge has no choice you know greed in fact the council agreed below that the judge had no choice yes so so l imagine that was there again what's the prejudice if the judge has to by statute  you're mandatory minimum the white papers are going to trump the guidelines that is the sentence the person is going to receive but it still seems to me that the court was not at liberty to ignore i would be hard put to say what the prejudice is ok now as to feral the argument is a little bit different because he didn't get mandatory and he did not well he got he was i didn't get the life and he did not get it he did not have life papers filed against him he had a different kind of a fifty one filed against him which made him which made a sentence of two hundred forty months compulsory so but but so when you say that the judge didn't do or calculation for pharaoh i'm looking at his twenty six of the transcript which is page two zero nine of the joint appendix it says i do incorporate a reference to all of my comments about these factors that i made at your original sentencing and then it says the one changes their guidelines to day is a lower range of two sixty two to three twenty seven they fall back then to be more fair and just why isn't that a god like you have relations because if you look back to what he said in disparity were even the base offense reflect in part of thirty nine of the most recently revised pre sentence report for the one point five euros of crack cocaine plus fifteen grams of cocaine would be thirty four produce your total offense guy level of thirty with a criminal history category of two the guideline range would be to sixty two to twenty seven why is that not a calculation the guideline range because he never said anywhere from where he miscalculating or not you have to leave the leader yes your honor but you agree that the first argument that he never calculated guidelines and all that's not right he calculated it you say he calculated was only based on the leader organizer and i got that right and that's a different argument it's an argument that he could have miscalculated he didn't do everything he needed but the argument you made in your brief which is that he just didn't calculate at all that was your argument brief and that's not correct you were correct there he identified a total offense level and a criminal history category ok now i'm not let's talk about the leader organizing problem so the jury decided he was a leader organizer right yes the on the reasonable doubt they one thirty two pm on page thirty of the jury instructions the judge said you must now you ma'am i'm asleep determine whether the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that mr farrell was an organizer or leader of criminal activity involved five or more participants in distinguishing the leader organizer from a mere manager or factor or supervisor factors you should include should consider include exactly the ones i just read  mr fletcher with the district court at the june fifth night two thousand and thirteen re sentencing hearing for mr fletcher that the court said that  so when it went through i can certainly represent that i tried to shrink it down but i think what happened is when it was actually filed electronically that the signature didn't come through you have a long plate i have a certified copy the we were able to get from the clerk's office mean really what must have happened is just in the electronic filing it didn't shrink it small enough and it cut off the judge's signature but as her and the other requirements under rule thirty two it does show the charges on which she was found guilty which were possession with intent to distribute a reasons there is no reason to remain on the case to yet again present the conviction from one nine hundred seventy seven the district court did find that the government had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that mr fletcher was convicted as alleged in the section eight fifty one notice and we believe given what the district court or rather this court said in the direct appeal that by filing that copy of the one nine hundred seventy seven judgment that we if you're under some further questions on that i'm happy to respond but i would like to turn now to the sentencing guidelines calculations all three guidelines calculations were done appropriately in this case for mr fletcher even if there had been some sort of procedural problem with the guidelines calculations for mr on fletcher there is no prejudice in this case and of course we are on planar review because no one  objected to the guidelines calculations in the district court in addition lee mr farrell there's no in addition to the fact that everybody agreed to the guidelines calculations and had no objections to the revised s under federal criminal thirty two as factual findings and so for those reasons the court did make sufficient findings the court also at recent sightings each one hearken back to the  reasoning it put on the records at the original sentencing so why it was imposing in the sense as it did now turning to any sort of alleged prejudice in regard to mr farrel he wasn't subject to a mandatory life sentence under section eight forty one b however at the recent thing proceedings and particularly in the memos that his attorney filed on april third two thousand and thirteen proceeding the recent sings mr farrel attorney said there was no material factual error mission in the guidelines calculations for mr farrel and additionally he that the attorney sought a two hundred forty month sentence or alternatively a two hundred sixty two month sentence which was at the low end of the guidelines range for mr farrel and in this case mr farrell indeed was sentenced to an aggregate term of two hundred sixty two months which is exactly what his alternative request was so even were there were some sort o a procedural error there special verdict instructions on the nineteenth of december nineteenth of january two thousand and five it's clear that the court was instructing in language that follows the guidelines on the four point enhancement which is what mr farrell received that was also in the government's indictment tract language that would equate to a four point increase in his sentence for being a leader or an organizer and additionally name to the january two thousand and five government made additional argument making it clear that we were talking about a four point and handsome prince and she was arguing that there were at least seven participants in the drug conspiracy that the government could point to so for all those reasons it's clear that there really isn't anything more that the district court needed to say it re sentencing regarding the four point handsome and the jury had found beyond a reasonable doubt that there were sufficient facts to find that the fo to be sure this is not an easy case for defense counsel but the judgment that was filed to satisfy the requirements for life papers is totally different than the judgment that has been handed up to the bench today and i don't think that that is what my opponent said or maybe i misunderstood i believe that it was filed by e c f and i do not believe that it was but i could be woman they are that i you know i'm hesitant to really get out on another limb on this i wasn't present here we discovered this very late in the in the proceedings i'm very sorry for that but it seems to me that for somebody who is serving life in prison with no possibility of release we need to be sure that the papers for him don't correctly and that the correct materials will be for the judge when he imposed the sentence and if there are no further questions i