j letter in response to we still have a dispute here the dispute boils down to what the district court actually did and whether it considered the changes in the law or whether excluded consideration of those changes and our viewers it appears to me that the district court did recognize the authority to consider the changes but if you disagree with that maybe you can put into the where do you think that the district court erred in terms of the subsequent opinion or subsequent change in the law and now specific what the court said and these arguments decision when we wrote our very and i think there's more evidence in the district court's st opinion which appears in the record add excerpts of record page thirty the district court in that case sad i understand that i'm supposed to correct legal standard and if the opinion doesn't make that clear then there is an error that should go back to the district court so that it can articulate the analysis that it applied and make clear about it did conduct that analysis and i think that also there's there's an inference here that the court didn't consider it because you would expect you would expect more when you have a factor that so fundamental to the initial sentence i mean this was a sentence that was driven by basically two factors the guideline amendments and the mandatory minimum both of those were changed and the mandatory minimum was brought up by the government at sentencing it was brought up by the defense at sentencing it was used as a basis was permissible for consideration you would expect something more than what you see in the opinion to show that the judge  what the court's permission i think i'll reserve the remainder of my time and there are no questions right now piers not thank you thank you where if we take the court at face value saying well even if i were to consider this i would come out the same and then we have opposite as well is it really clear that the judge had in his head and his heart his ability to consider the change and we send it back and we get the same result because that's what he already said so i think the question kind of boils the twenty eight dollars jail letter puts the argument on a different plane than it might have been had the government not acknowledged the state of the law but if that's the case  if the court would impose the same sentence then there's no need to grant a reduction and so i don't read that as an alternative ruling because he doesn't say if i considered the change mandatory m can't consider the change the mandatory minimum and i would impose the same sentence knowing that i can't consider it at so i would expect a different explanation if the court did consider about there was an error at the initial  honor i think that this judge said i can't consider a different mandatory minimum i don't understand his opinion just say if i did consider the change mandatory minimum i would impose the same sentence so i think it would be improper of hit on this that this is a fundamental part of but courts influences at sentencing just like when there is a guideline or it's presumptively prejudicial and this case there was a mandatory minimum error that we know from valencia mendoza which is fully retroactive and that certainly influence the sentence here in cases like garden higher higher the court has said we're not going to accept at a bare conclusory alternative  n so i don't have anything further from the court i'm happy to answer any further questions and i appreciate the court's consideration thank you and i like to thank both counsel this morning for the argument united states versus