you have to turn your microphone on sentences that fall within the sentencing guidelines we make the argument that the sentence here did not fall within the sentencing guidelines however that presumption of reasonable this can be overcome we believe or  the sentencing hearing itself the court spoke regarding the actual activity for which mr barrow was accused that activity included not only the obsession of the gun which he pled guilty but the court also mate implications regarding other conda although we understand that on the conduct certainly is relevant and should be if you had applied by the court eighty two which include of course reflecting the seriousness of the offense promoting respect for the law and to provide just punishment for the offense and to afford adequate deterrent as well as protect the public and provide for the educational needs and vocational needs of the sentence defend and this case your honor there is nothing in the record that shows that the district court appl do not have any site or case that i can i haven't i haven't seen maybe i might have i might a missed one but i'm pretty sure i would have noticed i understand you're making a procedural point not necessarily a purely substantive one here but it's it's a little hard for me to fall the district court when the court focused on this rather stunning fact of mr pereira's breach of just gross violation of the protective order putting the government's informant in danger it's amazing to me actually that he he's looking at just asserts he's looking at protecting the public he's applying the guidelines what more was he supposed to consider and if you're going to respect i do not believe that the court actually articulated any reference to protecting the public i think that's implied based on i think the argument is the lesser parkin proper to be applied though he doesn't have to do a pressing to have the court of appeals do the sensing rather than the district court and that sounds like what you're asking us to do no your honor i am not and i'm simply asking this court to hold the district court you judge for example on rehabilitation health care the judge was all over right he was actually very proactive in dealing with what when mr perera was saying about his health correct he was judged until sentencing the the government argues and will argue of course that the district court gave a lot of attention to my mr harris health concerns i do not concerns impacted his ability to actually commit future crime or if it would have helped force deterrence we believe that that would be a relevant application or analysis to m i guess signed off on by the m c c because he was being treated there in fact did have a melanoma on his head that was cancerous that was being treated at the time so he did have significant medical issues including  nature of illicit going trafficking the danger that such conduct poses to the community the defendant's troubling conduct on bonds that exposed the confidential informant to intimidation of physical danger in the course of the court's discussion the court touched on the dangers that the public faced by this illicit gun trafficking and the defendant's failure to to respect the law in the court's protective order that govern discovery in this case now if i could just briefly documentation that substantiated his claim of having melanoma and getting that treatment what i wanted to point out for the court was that at the change of plea hearing judge gettleman required the parties to come back for a joint status hearing where they could report to the court exactly what treatment the defendant was receiving and what what the m c c had diagnosed when he went into custody and with that those documentation that documentation revealed at that status hearing was that when the defendant went into custody he was interviewed about this obvious fatness had the judge got up and had been concerned about and he confessed to those folks at the m c c and in fact he had been diagnosed with any melanoma he believed it was cancer but he was not being treated for it he included that recommendation in the jancee but the court absolutely was aware of the potential for this defendant's medical issues just had never been substantiated to him and what was before the court showed at a one hundred and ten months incarceration so unless the panel has any question for the government i would see the remainder of my time and ask the one where one or one quick question was to get on with your brief referred to the posting of gang videos from the floor and just getting its court room is in the hallway with two fellow gang members of his that were accompanying him to court it was just sort of a video diary of his trips to the dirksen building with commentary and references just as a procedural matter when you original social media activity came to light it was just four posts that had been brought to the attention of the a t f the government subsequently executed a search warrant