deal and the issue i'd like to focus on first is whether the district court erred in giving undue consideration of alleged uncharged and uncorroborated conduct and that being a bank robbery there was no proof or credible evidence to support that in the recycle of the facts which would have constituted bank robbery of charged and a charge were given well i think there is a difference here i think that if we had in looking at the p s r we have to we have to object to what is incorrect in the pre sentence report and i don't think that there was any dispute of the fact that the statement was actually made by mr staying out argument as the fact that spent four days at a v a hospital who's been diagnosed with p t s d fairly significant p t s d in fact he's seventy percent disabled due to that p t s d and you're dealing with a gentleman who has been in a v a hospital for four days fact that it was factually correct in the fact that the people the probation officer listed it because of the fact that he gave a statement and we never really had an opportunity to challenge it at the district court level because if you look at how the sentencing hearing transpired what's are two robberies and discusses the fact that the one thousand nine hundred seven robbery it's only the defendant's description from there we get into an issue with regard to the court not receiving a mental health report court is is we take a break and it's not until about an hour and fifteen minutes later that we reconvene percentage saying at that point that the court asked whether or not we have any objections to the calculations which we did not and then we proceed in presenting our argument to the court with regard to mitigating factors of that nature and going into the thirty five fifty three a factors at that point the government is able to give their argument in which they discuss the fact that mr stang has to bank robberies from that point the judge imposed the sentence and we're really never given an opportunity to object to that because the judge imposed as we don't have an opportunity to respond he imposed a sentence the judge himself and i think it's on page sixty nine seventy of the excerpt of record discusses the fact that mr stang is twice has has twice committed a bank robbery so the district court has already concluded that without having any sort of evidence presented and with regard to whether or not this was corroborated i think the fact that this gentleman has  it's not to say that this information maybe if there had been testimony i think it potentially could have been different but i think judge whaley relied very very heavily on the fact that he believed mr stang had twice committed this offense when looking at his criminal and the judge did have said yes he did it there was a little confusion in the judge receiving that but what happened was when the judge when we took that break between nine fifty i believe in ten forty five that morning both government  completely worthless really is lacking in judgment and prone to do things that might be very serious or damaging to society truly this case is about giving enough punishment but to have to pay for the consequences of actions but really about rehabilitation because with the right treatment with the right medical attention this is something that i believe and i think even indicated that with a very structured environment he will be successful and i think our argument to the court was that with regard to the senate stepping years was sufficient in the courts should certainly consider all the other mitigating information to depart so i can save some time i think from our perspective he relied so heavily on the on his belief that the one thousand nine hundred seven bank robbery or alleged bank robbery happened that it really i think it took away from him recognizing that he could go  in which he was upset with the bank teller past even said that he was well here i think you could tell from or called to play with this group and that he's not challenging  we're not talking about a conviction we're talking about activity which if charge would clearly be a crime and presumably would result in a conviction  uncharged criminal activity certainly had a sentencing proceeding a sending court is well within its bounds to look at the characteristics and and history of the defendant and certainly i don't think it would be as it certainly is not inappropriate for sensing judge to take those sort of things into consideration particularly in a case like this where the admitted prior bank robbery was committed similar to this bank robbery in which a gun was used in hand bank tellers were forced to to your honor because i think because that prior bank robbery hadn't been charged in the fed it wasn't convicted of it his coming district category ended up being category one and certainly wouldn't be unreasonable for a sensing judge to consider robbery there was nothing that was increasing the guide to the fact that mr stang forced bank customers to leave pram thrown on the ground during this take over bank robbery there was nothing specifically in the guide an application that would have adjusted the guidelines for not only that i understand mr stang brandish the firearm but nothing specifically for actually sticking in pointing that gun and pointing it at the bank teller during the course of the robbery and trying to photograph attached to the brief and the guidelines themselves didn't consider all these other extreme factors which got i would respectfully submit that some if you talk to the bank customer he may have a different idea of what a reasonable sentence should be in this case particularly given the fact that mr staying as these mental  do that is not a reasonable sentence given the fact of all these additional aggravating circumstances it seems as if and judge will even said that this is the type of case that gave him difficulty in problems because of the violent possession of a firearm was a whole other policy determination about trying to keep firearms out of violent criminals hands and so really that is not a dispute has really been raised that appeal what's the what's the issue here is what is