you just as a general matter your view is that as long as the defendant did to broach arguments in the let's say his sentencing memorandum then at the sentencing hearing the district court needs to state on the record i am court has been privy to three times over i mean it seems pretty clear to me that the district court is saying he's very familiar with your client he's seen him a lot he's been up on appeal he knows you're asking for time served he says he's read the materials and he believes just as a as a matter of sentencing discretion it's just as he's a lot of the question why isn't and the main reason behind it is to allow come into our course one of the issues raised on he'll is whether or not the sentence is something that we can read which or this court have an obligation to undertake that for a record to preserve the overview there's no reviews for us to do other than to it than to ensure that the court is aware that it has discretion in the st place and so if that is the regime under which we're operating it seems to me it's incumbent upon you you tried to pull up the exact of this but i can find it on the spot here i didn't have yours then the judge have expressed confusion about this discretion and here it is there's no expression of confusion if i'm if i'm remembering correctly about henderson expresses an interest in a higher sense and so it's very unclear to me how any further explanation of this kimbrough issue would have led to come so clearly that is plain error lead to lower sentence i review all we can there this court is held in a wrangle case and in the valencia a very good case that when you're dealing with a failure to explain argument it's not enough to simply raise an argument in favor of one sentence you have to actually object if the district or doesn't adequately explain in your view that argument or how it's responding to that argument and the reason of course is because when you make an argument in favor of one sentence you preserved the argument in a higher sense of substantively unreasonable that's what holding her nando's is but you haven't preserved an argument the district court failed to adequately explain in its reasoning getting there so i think those cases are directly on point o enter directly on point as to the standard over here yes you talk about whether the judge actually calculated the guidelines range correctly here  point how do we know the judge realized so i think the reason would be and this doesn't show up as much in the nd thing hearing but you certainly see it in the st hearing the district court says essentially the reason it's running the sentence is consecutive is because it imposed the exact same sentence in two thousand and fourteen but random concurrently and that wasn't enough to deter the defendant for a offending so this time the court was going to run them consecutively and now the court bumped it down a bit on  answer answer and maybe just a practical answer but yes i think it's enough i don't think the district court was required to explicitly say the guidelines recommend concurrent sentences but i was in consecutive only start with the been a guideline range that reflected concurrent sentences i think and i'm not sure i i'm just not sure he ever didn't have a range that clearly was for both counts well i think that would at least be indicated by the fact that you know the p s r recommended grouping these sentences paragraphs sixteen the p s r the parties calculated a single guidelines ranged or calculated a single guidelines range i don't think there's any indication here that or thought that these were separate ranges or that they were supposed to run consecutively i think everyone really agrees the court knew it was that the presumption was for consent in current s that well i think what he's saying is that believe you're referring to page twenty nine dollars is that i don't think thirty or thirty three months would be appropriate it would be a disparate sentence i think that indicates that he knows he's going to have to very easy because of course if consecutive sentences were what the guidelines recommended then that statement would sort of be superfluous what he should have been saying was thirty to thirty three months would be a desperate sentence but that doesn't matter because statement you're referring to but i think overall it's certainly clear that the court is saying that a fifty four month sentence total is the necessary sentence and yet this is not being responsive but i want to get back to the question you were  and then maybe to give just the practical reason why this makes sense the guidelines sentencing range is going to change in every single case it might be a simple calculation it might be a complex one but it's going to be differen the concluded the presumption about concurrent or consecutive sentences is going to be the same in every single case you can see it at three thousand five hundred and eighty four dollars a you can see it in the guidelines so that if you have two terms being imposed at the same time unlike the sentencing guidelines range it is the same in each and every case so it just doesn't make a lot of sense to require the court to state the same thing over and over again in these proceedings instead the better conclusion is essentially what this round there i think it was clear because of what you quoted already that the judge knew that the guidelines recommended concurrent with choosing to go consecutive instead so i don't think the argument that was rejected last time