for a bottle following mr gordon's conviction but distribution of just under half a gram of fentanyl analogue the district court imposed a sentence over three times the high end of the guidelines recommended range in so doing the district court committed reversible procedural and substantive error related to its imposition of a consecutive sentence its treatment of the drug in question and its review of mr gowans criminal history consequently we ask that this court mr gordon's sentence for re sentencing giving this panel's order regarding us fee abney i'd like to turn st consecutive sentencing issues under this court's precedent most recently in apne defense counsel in this case involves a claim of procedural error but it involves an era that is a request that of sentencing exercise of the district courts or authority to impose a consecutive or concurrent sentence is predicated on the district court consideration of the sentencing factor just as an athlete this is an item that should be on a judge's standard sentencing transcript or check lest abney envision situations where a more detailed objection or explanation would be required like in the case of the buried flaw in the sentencing calculation this is not one of those instances consequently as courts review is for abuse of discretion and other circuits have a great one for example the  circuit and it's a garrulous lawyer said that the same challenge was preserved by the defendant's repeated requests for a concurrent sentence and the district court in this case did abuse its discretion the district court did not consider th something in the ten year range is appropriate for mr gordon and then again just summarizes how the factors court that ten year range just like the th circuit in jackson this discussion explains only why the as a discussion of the consecutive it's at that moment the district court is just imposing the consecutive sentencing there is nothing suppose he just said for the same reason i impose example the kitchen and johnson found that a reference to what would have been a verb if the district court indicated that the sentencing factors also supported the consecutive sentence and that adequately court also didn't explain why the aggregate sentence in this case forty two years would be appropriate under the sentencing factors and the district court also didn't even state its discretion to impose a consecutive  court did in kitchen and johnson six cases this lack of an explanation is particularly inadequate when there this case involves if triple or quadruple guidelines range and the aggregate sentence involved is forty two years but i'd like to turn now to the more glaring error that the district court made the district court repeatedly justified mr gordon sentence based on his distribution off benton all on his distribution of fentanyl to someone who had requested heroin but as the government even concedes in its brief there is no evidence in the record that establishes that mr gordon knew that the substance he was distributing was until one of two things happened in this case the district court imposed a substantial upward variance after assuming that mr gordon knew that he was giving the detective functional even though there's no supporting evidence or the district court imposed the variance based solely on the fact that the drug turned out to be found in the home without regard to whether that was evidence of knowledge under a strict liability type theory the st of those is procedural error a district court may not rely on clearly erroneous facts and sentencing and both are substantive it is unreasonable to gordon significantly more culpable and deserving of a substantial upward variance when there is precisely zero evidence that mr gordon knew that the drug he distributed was actually mentioned it is mentioned repeatedly throughout the sentencing transcript and its influence isn't limited to the nature and circumstances of the offense and also into allowances the district courts analysis of criminal history and unwarranted sentencing disparities and twenty eight dollars for example the district court notes that mr cordone is part of this trend of heart and drug dealers who start as street level dealers of marijuana but then progress to selling one of the most dangerous drugs on the street  with reference to the unwarranted sentencing disparities the district court says that an aggravating circumstance for mr gordon is that he and the only one who ended up who distributed fountain all day this is also another clearly gordon's criminal history repeatedly justified the variance with reference to what could have been if you had qualified as a career were it not for this court's decision in winstead this is an enhancement that mr gordon is not legally repeated but repeated references to what could have and to justify was actually imposed or to explain why a dramatic variance actually isn't that dramatic is unreasonable this year were there were a substantial number of convictions and incidents that produced zero criminal history points why isn't it fair for the district court to say that's a legitimate consideration and the fact that the guidelines might ciro out one or two doesn't compel me to ignore the fact that there are not because the district court didn't just do that it repeatedly reference this parallel universe no one said where mr gordon qualifies for the enhancement and gets our guidelines range of two hundred and twelve to sixty two and these repeated references and beginning the analysis with this reference it changes the framework so anything below two hundred and ten dollars suddenly seems much more convictions there's nothing improper about that and as a court recognized not only were these simply all convictions these were convictions of the same or similar type of conviction and the court has recognize molina that where you have same or similar convictions it makes it much more likely that the defendant is going to be a recidivist with respect to that crime and if this case doesn't prove the rule i don't know what does with the nonstop basically whenever the defendant is on the street he is and bernie really plays in that particular who are selling drugs and out with weapons and the district court quite properly recognized based on his history that he was a menace and that nothing short of a significant sense of medically longer than the guideline range hoped for was necessary to protect the public  from mr gordon and regardless of the reference to winstead that the court was simply pointing out that but for these guilty pleas he would have been  say that this is a win said by inhalation with respect to the district court's reference to the fence and all in this case this is obviously a fentanyl case that's what the defendant sold but the district court made it quite clear that the there were two independent bases for the variance that imposed tier one the defense extreme criminal history and a need to protect the public and the nd independent basis it found was the unwarranted sentencing disparities in the case and then it remarked that if you consider those two independent bases together how with the fat in all of your answers more than justified so that the references to fen with respect to arkansas if there are no questions on those two points i'll just move briefly on to the consecutive nature of the sentence here this is not a and with respect to the court's request that we address any this is not the type of district court gave a very thorough detail to consideration of the three thousand five hundred and fifty three factors and i think when you read this transcript there is no doubt that those factors apply both in terms of the length of the consecutive nature of the sentence that imposed district court said with respect to the argument that the defendant advance which was hey i got thirty two years in this murder case  late there's no point in giving me consecutive time here the district court responded to that by saying i'm sensing you for your conduct here in this case and if there's nothing that comes across from that transfer clear it's that the district court believed that based on the defendant's individual defendant specific factors ten years was in purpose and in this case regardless what was going to happen in the murder case  and finally with respect to the invocation of jackson jackson was a very different case here the argument was don't give me any give me concurrent time because my verse sentence the district court addressed that argument and said no i'm sensing you for your conduct you thank you mr i think you are out of time but you can take one minute if you like thank you your honor i'd like to address two points st on agni air at this is the type of procedural error that need talks about it's an overarching duty that's a requisite of sentencing it should be in a trip a sentencing transcript or script additionally there racked to