your honor of this or that requests will be granted thank you donna your honor time and again this court has held that a significant error in the calculation of the guidelines range results in a sentence that is very hard to show operable guidelines range where is the case without error and be found or held to have not contributed to the ultimate sentence and here we're not talking about one or two point difference at stage one we're talking about a very very significant swing there's no dispute in this case runners that mr hardy is a career founder and a fundamental problem with the sentencing when it actually of course which was in january twenty fifth thing is that the district court final sentence stage one that it was three sixty two wife then after exercising departure authority both for over state a criminal history which is the same thing that happened here and also because of the judge's view that some kind of due process violation had occurred because of the way to sting was structured had gotten down to a stage to host departure guidelines range of two hundred thirty five to two hundred ninety three months and present only then did the judge exercise variance power and then from there went down to ultimately ten years on the drug trafficking count and then the five years consecutive issue but on an i twenty four c we didn't appeal that because at the end of the day we disagreed respectfully with a lot of the judge's reasons in articulating that sometimes but at last month and the focus on that appeal was entrapment and the jury instructions outrageous government conduct which played a role in what judge arena sit here and then an eighth amendment challenge to the sentence there was no could certainly play room when he agree with that but i think the thing that matters the most is what the judge actually said he was doing the reasons he was offering when he finally did impose sentence and that in court i think that is the one that that trumps what happened before because the judge a hoary it certainly does ok and it's always interesting to read these transcripts from district to district from judge the judge and i mean it was  you know a little bit of a love fest here at certain parts of the transcript but you talk about the crew offender question and a two thirty one the appendix shows that the air here was an armless because we believe the lowest legally permissible sentence was ten years but i'm not asking the court to give me a recent incident because of that air i think it's error but that's not why we're here we're here because as this court has said time and again process matters th  court and again to talk about right to talk about lying for no quote from langford we submit that the improper calculation of the guidelines range can rarely be shown not to affect the sentence imposed that's five sixteen f there are two fifteen going on we cannot presume that the district court would have imposed the same sentence given the opportunity to consider the correctly calculated guideline that's at five sixteen f or two seventeen that's from this court's precedent and i'm not making it up i'm quoting from the court's precedent and that is a rule that three agree with you do we have to deal with that in an opinion i don't think you need to and nor do i think you should and the reason why i think on the should is that if the judge agreed is even wasn't given the benefit of comprehensive briefing and i apologize on behalf of charge i believe between trial and sentencing he began to reevaluate his view as to whether sting operations of the sort should be permitted now that's an issue in the dentists merits appeal mr dennis is appealing his conviction and a panel of this is to working at this from a procedural reasonableness a standpoint which is what we're looking at this is the mere fact that the court ignored that they says for reversal regardless of read us a towering figure if ever there was one of the district of new jersey he didn't have the benefit of comprehensive briefing nor has really this court yet and so i would ask that you hold off on that kind of decision and let look at it whichever district or wha he had last and i accept that ok so that made that's a basis for a disparity right there well it might be a basis for some to spare your heart for the same time if we look at this offense i don't think anybody can claim that my has been made on a very narrow issue even at that first sentencing hearing and i do look at it as a whole the matter might have been concluded that day but when the guardian's desire seven and a category of sex and there's no i defy any looking at this record to say that this court can be left with the competence i think an opinion on which the trial was a pan out on a panel brown which i believe was sudden or brief the court needs to be left with confidence sort of gave up at a couple spots the problem though is he has to do more than just simply say what he wants to do he has to offer good and sufficient reasons for doing that and above normal syria perhaps we can read this to say says you look at the entire video record you look for very clear indications that the that the error of the guidelines misapplication error at the end of the day did not affect the outcome but you still have to reason all the way through from the start of the ways the more you look at this record and more you become convinced that this is what he was going to do i see my time is expired so if i get a say after that question i didn't run i think this course but you'd have to make me president to find this is why i concur with and if you do i would ask that opinion be written in a way that the government could