because it's unclear from the sentencing hearing if the judge was constrained by rober son or not i speak with some authority regarding wheeler star world and  shelton got a below guideline sentence but again there's no indication that the court was constrained or not constrained by rovers and you know had not been decided the government makes arguments about five reading here and setting out those three categories we don't have the government's concession of course so we fall in the third murky cloudy area as mr curate and and unless the court has questions i think will rest on that argument and take the time to make the reason this argument to the district court on limited remained all right thank you very much thank guideline that requires allocation of sentences that tells you anything about the length of the sentence that you're allocating it's just the standard old guideline about you know if you have something  for current sentences it meets the guidelines and you just run them concurrently unless there's a statute that says you have to have consecutive and if you've got a blend you can run them a little bit consecutive in a little bit concurrently you have to play with them a little bit that way to come up with the recommended sentence but it doesn't tell you anything about dean or roper center you know what the legal restrictions on sentences are it doesn't tell you what the legal structures are judge but if that's what we're dealing with well so why shouldn't we ask the district judge who was inclined to be benevolent whether whether maybe she would have been a little more so knowing that dean completely threw out our circuits law and actually the law of quite a few other circuit well a couple responses sentencing guidelines could be mandatory i don't see what's the difference well there's the basal question of whether there's a misunderstanding as to whether robertson applied to this case at all and it's our position that the district court didn't give any indication that  independently now so what that guideline is telling you is do it dean says which is come up at the right sentence and then apportion them accordingly and that's what the district court did we don't know that that's what hypothetical discussions of every law or every case regime the supreme court might change some day at absolutely it is worth noting that sort of being granted and diena been argued at this point and so that's a position that's something that mr shelton could have raised in front of the district court that would preserve at and in that instance this court is looking under a denote a standard i think it's about sentencing procedure that didn't happen here where here are plain error and there has to be some responsibility there is that has to mean something and that's our position that that asked me mr shelton has the burden of showing an error and just a blank record doesn't show an error in this case now in terms of whether the court felt constrained by the over some line of cases if you look at the p under the rovers an analysis where you can't consider them together it's unclear to me the district court would have subsequently lowered both of those sentences to reach its desired result but that's what the court does because from two forty down to one eighty on the drug house one twenty down to sixty on the one twenty four c and that's because the court is considering this is a package so when the court reaches the desired result it then apportions them accordingly as the guideline tell the court do this five to one point to  guideline i understand the court's maybe skepticism that that however we do think that this case should be affirmed because the district market no indication constrained by everson whatsoever unless this court has any questions on i want to know the karajan was also plainer and puritan necessarily also involved five g one point two b because he was convicted i believe of a total of six offenses some had mandatory minimums him headsets during maximums and the court also a portion in that case it's a very similar case the only difference is perhaps that mr shelton got a slightly below guideline sentence in the end but other than that i think that the consequence for plain error is the limited remain and this court does not release jurisdiction the just report doesn't have to have statements although it often asked for them unlimited remains and then it will simply be affirmed of the just report said no it did make a difference or it didn't constrain me that's the consequence so unless the court has questions i will close for today and ask for the limited remained given by for it and move yeah right i don't think i've ever done that before all right thank you very much thanks to both counsel the court will take the case under advisement in the court will be