category of one would have resulted in a guideline range of fifty one to three months he asserts that that is the correct offense level based on his claim that he played a minor role in the read to perform in this particular case the history of the case was that on april the th of two thousand and sixteen a truck driven by mr gonzales a tractor trailer arrived at the waist this truck stop and ninety four in shoulder park mr guzman remarriages after receiving a telephone call agreed to go to that location to serve two purposes if necessary to assist in the offloading of the cargo which ramirez were would be stored at that location for someone else to pick up and distribute to these sources customers at a later time for didn't have to it did not happen what occurred at the truck stop is due to some of the just the call difficulties st that the truck would have had to travel away from the always says to engage in the activity to actually get the contraband out of the trap and parliament after some discussion part of which is to use member maris participated in and individuals actually left the location to go find somewhere to do this activity mr good's member mary's did not traveled with those individuals d to find an alternative location over the course of his involvement which including the travel from milwaukee down to ninety four dollars to the oasis in schiller park over the course of approximately four hours about ninety minute always is communicated no further with any of the involved individuals and went back to milwaukee  well according to the recorded conversations in the case the individuals which would have included mr carrillo whose case is currently still pending in the district court mr gonzales and the source of information the government source engaged in a conversation to try to find a location where they could offload the driver mr gonzales being fully cognizant of the height of the vehicle as is required to do is a commercial driver and an experience commercial driver when they left the always this and traveled down irving park road they determined that the overpass that they'd have to go by in order to get to the location they desired to go to was not sufficient for the truck to sat safely pas was a pick up truck to go scout out a location and again mr guzman ramirez remained at the away says throughout that time so what mr boozman remarries did in pleading guilty in this case is he acknowledge that he was a member of a conspiracy that conspired to distribute fifty kilograms of cocaine what he acknowledged was his role in the offense which was limited to allowing these kilograms a portion of which half of the lo stored at a location that he control either his house or his business that was never definitively decided but those were his two options mean till someone else came and picked them up and for this task he was going to receive a payment of five thousand dollars the task was never completed he never received the payment he left the always has never communicated with any of the other participants after that event and it's  position that the guideline application note clearly falls in a position where it should have been applied to him now in the district court the sentencing judge made the same comment in his finding he determined that mr good's member marrows was not as culpable as the leader but we acknowledge that that's not the appropriate comparison the comparison is to the individuals involved in the activity in this case was the less culpable than the average participant with the district court never asserted was that gonzales and or average participants avila was never charged and later it was determined consolidates receive the benefit of the minor role reduction and was sentenced to forty eight months with a different criminal history category and much more extensive involvement and a higher rate of pay is different that this correct i think an important issue too in this case is these individuals who are all charge in an indictment that were was filed in february of two thousand and eighteen it was initially a complaint filed against solace in january which had a lower case number the two indictments were filed on the same day and sent to different district court judges it's we believe that mr  substantial burden here of establishing that it was clear air to not apply the role reduction in this case the government's argument that the reasonableness of the sentence is not a meritorious argument is misplaced because they do not in their brief properly calculate what the guideline range is the true guideline range in this case with the application of guideline three b one dollar would result in an offense level of twenty four  range of fifty one the sixty three months in that transportation of multiple kilos of cocaine from one location to the other same is true for mr avila mr guzman remember is was to get five thousand dollars payment for his role in in transporting the cocaine the truck driver was to get thirty thousand dollars they were both going to get paid the record doesn't disclose whether a dealer was going to get paid but as compared with mr gonzales the defendant in this case was going to get paid in fact at a similar rate consolidates the truck driver who brought out fifty kilograms from laredo texas to chicago was to get thirty thousand dollars that's about so as compared with anybody else to participate in the offense and neither did every law so all three of them gonzalez of ila and the defendant here occupied a role similar to one another store that started the agreement called for him to store the cocaine as yes now as to its transportation between chicago and milwaukee in fact that is something that makes him relatively more ramirez was going to have on the plan was for him to store twenty five dollars kilos of cocaine in milwaukee either and his homers business that would have given him personal access to i understand it that he was going to await further instructions about who would pick up the coke from from him in milwaukee at all the government advocated for a longer sentence for gonzales that took place before a different district court at a later date we contended that the guy had the same guidelines should apply to consolidate as applied to sentencing and solace and it's sentenced her marriage based on a correct application of the guy lines leaders there were disparity i don't know whether that's even a legal term it's not required at all to consider what another district court judge may do in the future with an un sentence defendant so i don't think there was any showing of there's no i mean there's no basis for the comparison that there's a right there's other comparative and where the facts are the same in the government's position is the same and the guys are the same the drug quantities the same and there was no basis for the for the district court here to anticipate that  here is that is the district court that sentence mr guzman ramirez was aware that a pre sentence investigation report it already been prepared on mr gonzales where the minor role was applied to him was not in that position it was the government that bore the burden of establishing that the application was not correct but what is clear in this case is number one mr goodman ramirez did not agree to transport any drugs he agreed to store the drugs america's travel to the oasis in separate vehicles the guideline application notes three a specifically addresses a person who agrees to store the drugs were average participants he applied no such labeled so that it is not it is not impossible to have multiple individuals in a drug distribution conspiracy to play minor roles that's not only assignable to one individual so it's our position as outlined in our brief and supported by the facts in this case mr guzmn ramirez's role was limited to that four hour period and in regards to recruiting mr gonzales a recruited a companion to take the trip with him for the purpose of helping him drive the vehicle and to deflect suspicion of law enforcement mr mr  take control of that entire load for several days he could appoint anywhere he wanted with that whole fifty kilogram load he clearly knew where the compartment was because he engaged in the conversation about what needed to be done to access the load so given that the posture of the facts of the case are such that whose memories his role d was less than guns alice's and the application notes specifically applies to him it's the position that he should have been sentenced as a level twenty four dollars offender with a criminal history category of one which would have taken him below the range history category had a history of acting as a driver for a cartel mr good's a member maris's activity was limited to this case was an otherwise law abiding citizen his entire life and had no prior interaction with