require jury to determine if any have facts that would enhance the stand and so she imposed a sentence that was consistent with the law  clear sometime earlier so i see this is not quite in sync if you understand what i'm saying i do agree that there are some differences between the two only in the extent of what the court stevens for the court in book or with a only and not the remedial opinion by the justice friar for the court but i do think that the difference is although here the defendant got the eighteen month opposed to the fifty one month alternative sentence at the time of sentencing the expos facto principles at least are the same because the question is whether that if i had four fair warning that they faced a fifty one month sentence and at the time the same principles were in fact and in fact right up until a couple days before the sentencing hearing in this case those principles would have applied so there really was fair warning all the way through and the logic at least on the ex post facto clause would apply the same and dupe us as a don't think it was improper to do so i don't think that the court when it actually imposed the alternative was talking in hypotheticals because if you look at the government's action of record page one hundred forty one of five and that's the point in time in which the court actually  mandatory well i think it is yes it assumes that the guy lies that isn't that reason alone to say go back and you want to send him to fifty one months again or whatever it is the be my guest but at least now you know that you don't have to well we agree vision this will play out if it goes back in and now it's in front of that snyder again and what happens we envision they make their pitch you make your fish and she recently says i think the appropriate remedy this is not exactly a situation there's no reason to revisit the fifty one month sentence and allow an openly man to do so the question really which is the same scenario this course face and i'm like three again it's a slightly different context there but i think the ultimate really and should be limited to the same question and that seems to be the you can reduce it to twenty months i don't know of any alternative i know many judge has that authority i'm not aware of any specific rule that there are statute that allows it or alternatively prohibit i would note in the drina this court in dealing with continual criminal enterprise liability and lesser included offenses in which the tenant actually can be convicted of both at the same time at least double jeopardy would prevent the imposition of sentence or conviction of both this court saying if the guidelines or in effect as we've always known them to be in effect and if this is all a passing phase then it will be a fifty one month sentence that has not come about as we all know the guidelines are not in effect as they have been as they had been before as they had been at any time the guidelines are now advisory so as an initial matter i don't think that this court can simply alter the eighteen months and to assess the one month sentence and then remain and for the district court to determine whether or not she would have done the same fifty three a the court needs to impose a sentence that is sufficient but not greater than necessary to meet the statutory sentencing purposes in this particular case mr goff is out it's outside of the record but he has a full time job he has got his driver's license showing ourselves to be sort of standard as a morning well in any case well that was the law i came to that is really to the issue of the double jeopardy which the government raised and its letter brief the government argues persuasively that a higher sentence would not be double jeopardy expectation of the finality of the sentence however not all the cases that the government sites are distinguishable as this court held arianna rios a completed legal sentence does give a defendant a legitimate expectation of the finality of a son's clearly the custodial portion of the sentence has been completed the real question is whether the sentence is legal and for the reasons articulated by judge fletcher at the time that it was imposed it was in in this case first of all we don't we don't have a situation like they had in kane where the guidelines were good and then they were bad and they can go out again we are not in a situation where the guidelines are good again and the law has changed  that way we're in kane the supreme court had already granted certain the stratify the time the defendant had been sentenced so clearly the defendant was on notice that the sentencing of form act could infinitely go into effect in this case the on the government moved for a number of days and we didn't oppose those days but extended the briefing schedule the government was originally supposed to file its opening brief in november they filed it in april that is why mr goff is now out at the time that this court is hearing this so i would argue not only that the eighteen month sentence was legal at the time it was imposed it continues to be legal now and that a higher sense is arguably double jeopardy they say the key to their letter brief called miers this is when the government is the party appealing the length of an imposed sentence as improperly short the defendant's completion of that sentence does not move the appeal because the government still alleges a remedial injury trackwork failure to impose the appropriate sentence which in which a statute or the guidelines case after a ten minute