legal problems below the first was an insufficiency of proof the second were dealt with disposition in this case and the record that the court made the reasoning for the  sentence of detention at the disposition hearing i'd like to talk about the second argument i think that a fair reading of the record below reveals that the district court did night articulate any and certainly any degree rehabilitative purposes of the juvenile delinquency statute i think the government argues that's  the act and the time of sentencing time disposition he was out of custody for me the six to eight months i believe when the government actually picked him up a couple of times but didn't find the warrant he was in this case he was at a port of entry with drugs you know one and then he was turned over to the state authorities who put him on probation that was an adult adjudication so the facts of this case are not necessarily already been treated as an adult in a prior prior acts that's correct and we have we have immigration violations as well we do your honor except there are those are problematic it turns out that this juvenile or at the time of the of the offense was a juvenile this individual was the history of this particular individual you know there are there are problems with this case in terms of him feel good story this problem however i think that procedurally it's more than that the district court if it's treated as a juvenile case which it was it was not prosecuted as a criminal prosecution by the government could have sought transfer in this case but did not so it was treated solely as a matter and that's extremely important because the procedural protections are not in place that would have been in a criminal case he went to a quick one of a trial he had a bench trial before the district court witnesses were called and the government had to put on its case he did not get the right to jury  think recommended by the priest and that's important it was recommended probation with no detention because the report writer in believe that detention would not serve a rehabilitative purpose in only one here that sees that you're a drug dealer if you're going to be a drug smuggler that's how i'm going to treat you as a drug smuggler and if that's the way you want to support your family back home that's well and good but if that's what you want to do be willing to be a man and pay the price so i think the judge is clearly trying this case as a criminal matter and again there's a history that's problematic i see why the district court is saying that but this is a criminal harmonious in that mix dealt with an adult pose pre book or sorry close to her case and the process that's due there once you go through the threshold of guidelines were calculated and they were considered calculate correctly and they considered that the other factors that come into play i think that this case is analogous because the factor of rehabilitation is the central factor is the basis the baseline the starting point so you can look at it one of two ways either that or the guidelines don't apply the starting point in a juvenile case is rehabilitation and then other factors may come into play as well or you can look at it like cooper that if the guidelines don't apply that the court needs to consider and articulate on the record his reasoning in imposing a sentence in light of the purpose of rehabilitation the spiritual tension in the past and not work for your client has i mean the work because i think it wasn't tried in other words this individual was not helped in the past to hopefully change his ways before he as he is now is that is an adult so i think that it's important that the court on the record identify the rehabilitate factors and say either why they wouldn't work or at least give us something so for in a reasonable in this review we have no reasoning to review and that i think is a problem that requires remain and because if we can't look at we can't determine whether it was reasonable and i think that's what cooper talks about what sort of sent us to see before he received a probationary sentence here out of that sort of rehabilitation and at least  that one would consider a probation or to have received so in that case it was sort of a do good probation and you know if you come back you're going to be in trouble whereas it's not something that rehabilitated him but the fact is that he not exclude that detention can be used as a method of achieving rehabilitation and that's what the district court noted here in the district court didn't use the phrase rehabilitation when he sentencing the defendant but if you look at what the district court did here  district court decided that giving this diff defendant two years of detention he faced a possibility of five years under the juvenile statutes which is again the last in the a b a standards so not an abuse can see it when he makes these phrases about you know i think you're capable of get it together you know it's time for you to be a good man stop sliding you know that that those are all you know if he's determining that twenty four months in this particular defen to rehabilitate and to be a good man and that's why i think he has taken that into consideration it's not done in a specific manner as the defendant submit should be done but i disagree i don't think it needs to be done that way we f thirty five fifty three factors doesn't have to state on the record he's considered as long as the record fairly reflects that and here we have the defendant at sentencing arguing all about rehabilitative rehabilitative needs and so the district court's aware that the government in its pleading also talked about what would be best for the defendant's rehabilitation the p d our recommendation of the probation department on page ten of their p r when they're recommending what they submit is a good result here they know the rehabilitative purpose so again the record is chock full no need to get around it you can follow it and this case is just fine with it there's actually some but there's a quote in there that the f j d a requires the assessment of the totality of unique circumstances and rehabilitative needs of each juvenile and this particular defendant unfortunately had committed the same crime before he had been on supervision at the time he committed this same crime supervision and that's where the probation department we would respectfully agree with the district court here  status is the record really doesn't clearly reflect that i also think that's another reason why the arguments on knowledge of the flight is solely for immigration at that that's something that the court found no his his flight was based on what it believed to be  who's saying that we are trying to improve he was opposed to passion well again i guess i'd say that you know district court is going to take a look at things in so many different ways and i think it's the bottom line it gets back to your question that  obviously aware of it he's articulating what he believes this particular defendant needs and as the the first first circuits of patrick case noted juvenile did not preclude you know they were they were analyzing the juvenile two thousand and three case this court case and they noted that it did not preclude the use of detention as a way of getting a defendant to accept responsibility and to further his reveal taishan and that's what we have in this case is a district court determining that purely probation or supervision would just not be obviously hearing that i don't think he needs to parrot it when he's sentencing the defense but he also just never i understand this may be pro forma but we do these things sometimes there are reasons to do it in terms of the system as a hall to see that things are done in orderly fashion houses and and to have be sure that there is some self consciousness in the part of the judges to it's really that perception of self consciousness whether he understood what the standards were the defendants in the juvenile detention facility he be able to get help with his immigration status to the florence project scoble project so that could also further his particular situation and in footnote five of our brief we list all we know the bureau of prisons soul contract for a secure juvenile facility is the regional center in stafford arizona and it requires its contractors to ensure quality programming fifty hours per week for doctoral juveniles in addition it offers it's a twenty four bed facility offering educational programs counseling and psychological services structured recreational activities substance abuse education and help them with their financial this particular defendant been convicted as an adult and actually that the district court thought that the government had given this particular defendant a break here but he found that had he been convicted as an adult he would have faced a guideline range of seven hundred eighty seven months and a minimum mandatory of five years of course because like that one well he knew he was a juvenile because he said he was today's hundred eighteenth birthday right and he says that the government treated him as a juvenile and that's at the record the sentencing transcript of page eighteen as well as page fifteen to sixteen he's making comments about how this particular defendant benefited from the fact that he'd been treated as a juvenile as opposed to an adult runners i think it's important to note that the juvenile proceeding is not criminal bites it's a rehabilitative purpose and that should be the whole impetus behind the proceedings if the government is wants to avoid that they should seek transfer just because someone received l think it's questionable whether he would have gone back to mexico because we proffered of course or to fix it which the court accepted as genuine so i think the district court had the authority to stay deportation and could have monitored the case could have had a ray of options open to it  had probation had follow ups i mean the tension in this case i'm not saying is objectively and reasonable the problem is that there is no indication in the record as to how we got there other than the fugitive language that the court has virtually every sentencing as well we hope that they rehabilitate but it's a different focus in a different standard for a juvenile and that's what was lacking in this case