good morning may it please the court excuse me my name is barry rhodes i represent the defendant the i want us to go this court sees deplorable crimes for sure  but i submit that this involving the murder of a nineteen year old mother and a two year old child ranks right up there go ahead it certainly does what brings me here today is that the defendant is not the sentencing court took that into account it did it did indeed and i and i but i don't think in a manner that showed a was an unspeakable crime of the worst sort and and he went through the various factors that need to be considered and at this stage of our review what is it that we should do given what the district court did judge b our our our our view is limited in this case judge bianco is a fine jurist and his record  superman this case and i understand what a difficult obstacle it presents for me but nonetheless the case law recognizes that there are situations concededly quite   right after this agreed islam is a double homicide of the perpetrators fleeing in a car two of them the one who fired the first shot and the one who fired the shots into the infant celebrated used to garcia cried he cried so much then and later while the crimes were being shown on t v and the other perpetrators were cheering the name of the gang and come congratulating themselves on their action he cried and he cried so much judge that the f b i named to mr weepy he cried in court he cried in his probation report his remorse was beyond anything i've seen and i'm a cold blooded defense attorney for forty five years and a prosecutor before that but the clear that the district court was struggling with all this and this is not a case where the district court was immune to the arguments that you were making this record considered and and said that for  committed out at just on a lark this is very much thought out he brought this circumstance to this gang lord this woman and her child he was involved in the most unspeakable things he wept he wept the district court understood all  is to try to assess whether what the district court did could not be located within the range of reasonable decisions that's our task here and  surely understand the judge but there are occasions when the district court notwithstanding this high level of proof along with difficulty of friends with the district court errors years to the best of my knowledge zahra was not a cooperator i do not comprehend how it could be that zorro showed greater remove most or that the public needs into fellow imus thirteen gang members who were in one thousand year old woman and her two year old son into the woods and they executed in this defendant played a key role in those murders he provided the motive he lured the victims into the woods and fired one of the fatal shots after that he fled the united states give the boy with when he had the opportunity to not through that's correct your honor and one of the factors that the district court relied on one who dated her he's the one who had a dispute with her and the key factor here is the fact that he took what could have been a personal dispute and he brought it to the gang and at that point despite the fact that he was only seventeen years old he'd been a member of the m s thirteen for two years and he was well aware of the rules of the gang and he not only brought the dispute to the gang but once he did so he brought it to his co defendants guzman and me here in the three of them decided that because of her disrespect of him the appellant is wells or disrespected the gang by sending rival gang members to garcia's house that she ought to die what do you do with yours and the series that seems to be his primary remorse is certainly a factor that the district court may consider and in here the record is abundantly clear that the district court did consider the defendant's remorse in the scope of that remorse to the court doesn't just consider that in a vacuum it also must weigh that against all the other thirty five fifty three day and miller factors in particular here the seriousness of the offense and it's also significant and determine how much weight the court  gave or should have given to the remorse factor is the fact that this is not a defendant who showed remorse and surrendered himself right away he was a fugitive for more than four years who were to extraordinary lengths to avoid capture and he not only fled from the united states to el salvador immediately after the murders but when the f b i went to hell salvadoran attempted to locate him in el salvador he was tipped off by local law enforcement there and he again fled and he remained a fugitive his location was unknown to law enforcement for many years and the only point that he was captured was when the f b i put them on their most wanted list and that generated tremendous media interest it self and he did your honor but we would submit as we argue sentencing he turned himself in not out of the goodness of his heart but out of self interest and the fact that he was in nicaragua he was not a citizen of nicaragua there were already rumors floating the bounty hunters were after him so he made a self interest the decision to surrender himself and once he did he did accept responsibility we know that's obvious that's undisputed but that's just one factor for the court to consider against the nature of the crime and also the timing of that acceptance responsibility supreme court said in miller and montgomery that it should be uncommon to sentence juveniles to life imprisonment and then it should be reserved for the rarest of children that's correct your honor but it also set forth a number of factors for courts to consider and what they mandated essentially was that each defendant receive an individual i's sentencing process and that's exactly what the district court did hear it not only considered the thirty right and that he was not rehabilitation the district court did find those things and that was sent over the government's objection over the objection of the probation department however i think the objections of the government probation  regarding the degree of the defendant's remorse are certainly things the district court could consider in the weighing of those factors but again it's not just that factors not only their morse they have to consider the fact well this defendant was seventeen years old at the time of the murders he'd been a member of the gang for over two years and you just suppose that against the defendants in the miller case who were fourteen also the nature and circumstances of the murders and miller i submit we're distinguishable from here where you had a premeditated murder that was planned over a period of weeks and i began talking before about the fact that once the plan was hatched between garcia  went to the quick leader and it's significant within the m s thirteen that they didn't go to just any quickly or they went to the leader of garcia's click it was his quick leader they got his permission to carry out the murders they also used a gun  owned by that click so they went to the click leader they got permission to carry out the murder and they got permission to use the click gun and at that point garcia's role continued to be significant he was the one who borrowed a car he was the one who went to which if the court is familiar hempstead is probably thirty forty minutes away from the scene of the murders after picking up the two victims and it's significant you know r c was by himself that time this is not a situation where he had the two other gang members with him and he was under some under pressure he was alone in the car he would pick up an s or get a she made the decision to bring her child with her and despite the fact that he was in that position he continued with the plan or number of different things he could have done he did not he drove east he picked up his two coconspirators they drove they had to wait around for almost an hour to pick up the gun he then drove all of them to this isolated wooded area and lured him into the woods and again his relationship with us to is extremely important she was a century a stranger to both me he and his mom she would enter the woods that night in the middle of the night with her child with complete strangers she went into the woods because she knew garcia and he was sentenced to forty five years and it was after garcia was sentenced so the court didn't have that sentence essentially to compare to at the time of garcia's sentence however  that the court made a specific finding that boozman never would have even been involved in these murders were not for the appellants decision to bring him in to ask for his assistance and include him in the murder conspiracy