time go ahead and i'll catch up with you on ok if somewhere in there are two main issues that were raised in this appeal one regarding sentencing entrapment and another with regard to the reasonableness of the sentence with respect to the sentencing entrapment issue i think probably the most central problem that i found with the district court was that it seemed to me misunderstand exactly what the sentencing entrapment was because it seemed to look at it as more than entrapment issue and those are two very different things at least as i understand them but one thing that i have to say on the entrapment thing your client had a prior drug charge correct correct that you know i mean generally on if you want to claim entrapment in that you're not predisposed to give a certain thing i mean she has a completely separate event you know different officers different situation and she's got a conviction for  you know i major narcotics charge that that's a pretty serious nail in the coffin when you're trying to claim that you know you you know you weren't ready and willing to do something and here's and here's exactly the point that that i think is is subtle but very important and that is that this isn't sentencing entrapment is not entrapment entrapment is a situation where you have someone who may be not predisposed to commit the crime and you by your by the government's move you know urging and involvement then does it sentencing entrapment is not that that is where the government by virtue of its agents causes the transaction to be much larger than it at the evidence it sure looks to me that the government attempted to make this as big a transaction as possible and just with what you say you're not sure what their motivation with what would be what was the district court then supposed to focus on of the wasn't motivated well i think the district court should have focused on that from the district court's comments what i understood the district court to be thinking was whether this was entrapment or not not sentencing entrapment because the court's comments were well you were predisposed to commit this crime but also said you were ready and willing to produce that particular amount things just sort of went awry and you couldn't come up with the amount right so that would sort of indicate an understanding of that well i'm not sure if if the district court did say he's not apologizing or you know he would seem to be upset that they you know you need to give us more time if you want to get that amount or something along those lines well there obviously a great deal of difficulty coming up with it the meat in the end came up with less than half and even that was due to adding other things to the mixture and and just to go back for a second because you pointed out that my client did have  previous conviction but if you look at the amount involved in that it was i think one one hundredth of the i'm not involved in this transaction so i think there are there was a quite a bit of evidence that there could have very well been sentencing entrapment in this case i think on any entrapment argument you have a thought or argument if your mother teresa then if you have a prior pregnancy no argument here on out of that i mean when i were representing your client i would much prefer having mother t sentence the court first of all the court didn't really give any explanation for its ten year term other than the mandatory minimum and i understand that there's cases that sort of assume  the mandatory minimum he had to succeed on the entrapment right that's correct except for the fact that what i'm talking about with respect to the reasonableness of the sentence see to me when i look at those two questions there's no way to make them jibe because on one hand you've got district court ordered to look at everything in the case under thirty five fifty three and to craft a reasonable sentence on the other hand there's this mandatory minimum but i look at this case i look at this figure oh i look at her background i look at the fact that the last time she went to jail was for four months and if you look at what went on you can see that she got involved with this guy who was basically leading her astray i'm not saying she doesn't bear some blame for what she did but her life for thirty eight years didn't involve any of this and then she gets involved in this guy and she starts doing these things but her last sentence for months now she's going away for ten years and i just don't see how reference predisposition it says that the defendant either has to have a predisposition or to lack the capacity and it seems to me that the district court here in saying that defendant was ready and willing is is directly addressing those factors nonna says defendant can't and has to have neither the intent nor the resources so when the district court says that she was ready and willing he means that she has the capacity the resources and the intent after the original requested twenty five does this prove that she was predisposed to smell of to sell a smaller quantity i think that's what he i think that's what her counsel is pretty sure you know i mean because i indicated no your honor i would say not on these facts and she she what she not she agreed first of all to sell twenty five pounds and then she actually made every effort to come up with as many pounds that she could put together and that was ten point five pounds which with the accusations of concerning the galley even at the recent unsing after this court's fucker remained the the the court remembers the name of the gal and engages with the defendant in a dialogue about the gal's activities and the court simply sa the mandatory minimum fives the court found that and there's no reason why booker should be able to come in and trump that to terminate him or why thirty five fifty three i which is why statute should be used to override another statute which is eight forty one i would make one final point just with respect to the sentencing and trial and i think that that there is a difference between crime and sentencing entrapment and that is critical in this case and it's not just the predisposition but a towel we get to that high  and i think if you read those cases in iran and read you right not sure if i'm pronouncing it correctly they talk about that particular issue and that it's not it's not really whether you're predisposed to commit the crime but what