argument now in the case of united states against maybe i could make some money running to prostitutes being a pimp and that left him to one day oh he's driving through one of the little towns right next to east st louis  seeing a young lady a teenage an underage teenager that he pulled over and said hey would you like to make some money my pretty want to make some money she got in the car with him they went to missouri where he met his wife and then they loaded her up in the wife and they went to several other states pictures of sexual nature were taken of her ads were posted on back page  to have relations with this teenage underage teenager and men paid money to have sex with this went on for about six weeks and then she was sent home when mr thompson pled guilty and he played with a stipulation of facts and an agreement to pay guilty in those open plea there was a term set out and proposed guidelines in the agreement in that he and he just about filling word for word for the statute what it doesn't show in the stipulation of facts or the means how he got to that particular part of it since it is and it's important as this  statute because it's force fraud or coercion to get the higher part of the statute the fifteen year mandatory minimum it also would affect where your guidelines fall well the factual stipulation that he signed references the fact the sex acts the commercial sex trafficking are you blaming her not at all around not at all but there is force there could be fraud the just gets her in the truck it doesn't mean that that fraud continued on when you look at this stipulation of facts and well even first you know i'm ok even if for some reason his surance you know that she' l model wasn't enough why can't we look to the threat that was referenced in the present its report he didn't object to that you know in order to satisfy ourselves that there is  kid she was threatened by marcus thompson after she declined to have anal sex with a male subject and following escape attempt that's the sentence for bail on you know looking at it and that's that's also go to prof so i point that out and all that's the only one he threatened her there's not a lot to that he just he threatened her that could mean if you don't do what i want you to i won't give you the money i will leave you here in georgia theme for yourself all things that don't necessarily some very very serious and disturbing facts in the complaint you notice in the brief it's referenced in the transcript on one of the things i brought up was judge are and that's where judge reagan had the dogfighter cases and he had done his own sentencing them and this court you know he had repeatedly i had one of those guys actually two but he repeatedly said i'm not holding my memo against every and to be honest i mean i watched the sense he did you know this case right off the bat and we look at the comments about injecting the victim and how many i had missed this woman said in district court the comment was there was evidence he was injecting the women with drugs that inject the victim later on when he's making his ruling then it's you know we're in a different situation where he's this one line in here in the prisons report that i read has turned into and i find he used threatened her with physical force and that's not the line of precentor that's the only reference anywhere in this or any type of a force and judge reagan stepped to long and said lifeline to use physical force and i say that again when back to what i started that if you read the discovery which he did there were a lot of question about fraud and thank your honor for recognizing right away that clearly there's the circumstance of fraud in the entice ing of the girl to travel with mr thompson and by the way the wife is nowhere around at that time and the record shows that mr thompson by his own admission planned this while he was in prison he wasn't in prison with his wife he didn't pick up the girl with his wife i don't think there can be any objection to judge ragan saying well clearly they're not equally culpable clearly mr thompson's the leader of this enterprise where the ring leader or other pops thank you your honor also for threat in the two instances the refusal to have a certain type of sex and the attempt to escape now i guess the objection here is well it doesn't say in the p s r thread to do what  and i think it's clear that what's implied is if you're trying to get somebody who can gauge what has been described historically as an unnatural sex act of fifteen year old girl that your threat is a threat of  force and same thing with an attempted escape what is your threat to prevent any further attempt to escape it's a threat of some form of punishment or restraint again physical force in and your honors i'd like to actually thank my column b i'm up i'm in counsel please refrain from talking unless you are at the podium i'm very sorry i forget the recording system i just want to thank my colleague because he brought the statute with him and i didn't have it and he graciously gave me a copy of the statute and the statute of course includes  imply threat of force make it also goes to the judge saying threatened with physical force will that a natural inference from the facts so i don't think that indicates any bias on the intention of the judge but and again i was unfamiliar with the statute but coercion is defined the indictment identifies coercion the stipulation it done if i scored and coercion means excuse me i'm getting a new to this requirement the term coercion means a paragraph be any scheme plan or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that failure to perform an act would result in physical harm excusing serious harm or physical restraint against any person who clearly everything that's outlined in both the stipulation of facts and in the p s r in its brief description of what the defendant said when interviewed but the victim said when interviewed you know there's some additional thanks in there also which would be the sufficient basis for the for the entry of judgment on the plea i also learned about eleven b three and that if the court doesn't have enough from the stipulation or the police hearing the court is certainly free to go for entry of judgment on the plea to assure itself from the p s r that there's a sufficient basis clearly all of this  and clearly what the defendant was playing to is a scheme plan or pattern intended to cause this fifteen year old to believe that that if she failed to perform an act that there would be physical restraint used against her or serious harm i mean one of the things include is that she's actually sold to another truck driver for two thousand dollars but he's unpleasant with her or doesn't like her and it gives her back so clearly the control you know as this girl's been taken from far from where she was picked up from state to state to state to state it clearly involves something that would lead her to believe that she is under restraint physical restraint  so let's go into the sentencing issue you know the thing that struck me about the judge saying look i've got a responsibility to make sure the probation office is doing a good job in preparing pre sentence reports so in connection with the codefendant i had looked at the discovery in this case and i think what's notable about the carefulness of this particular judge in our district is that he had noticed a couple of things of concern to him and he wanted clarification and so we asked for clarification and got clarification that the two things he was concerned about oh from the government as well as the defense were not found founded apt allegations that they were unfounded as to this defendant and as to this victim so basically he clarified that he didn't need to be concerned about those two issues and i think that just shows the carefulness of the court to then somehow suggest that oh he was unduly influenced winnie determined that the two things he was concerned about did not apply to this victim and were not founded allegations according to the government you know i i would think that that works the other way you know i didn't hear it mentioned but i think i have to address it i think mr skate to probably go to it when he gets back up you know the only thing well there are two things that i saw on the record i think when the judge used the word pedophile he simply misspoke clearly this is a sexual predator in the means in which he thought about how to get a  so it any rate there's that and so i don't think there's anything to the judge having used a word once it's nowhere else and he's not making a case about pedophilia and all in the justification for  unwarranted disparity in sentencing well it's within the guidelines range and the reality is is different judges with different defendants even with seemingly similar crimes in similar circumstances are going to impose different sentences and i think the key question and of course the judge was aware that other judges don't impose life sentences he doesn't impose life sentences he remarked second time in his career so to suggest that because the judge was upset with the late handing up of sivits in violation of the rules of his court that somehow that shows he didn't consider this i think it is quite unfair he wouldn't consider the exhibits mr skaggs was free to argue that different sentence in life would be an appropriate sentence based on all the people who commit similar crimes don't get a life sentence and of course the judge was aware of that and the judge explained why for this defendant in this case for for his honor that that was the appropriate sentence  i think i think i don't want to speak for the judge but i think basically what the judge was indicating not only general deterrents but given the fact that this young man planned this crime and then executed this crime while he was serving his prison sentence and then executed after indicated a need for specific deterrence that he never be released into society again thank you for your attention excuse me your for my lack of courtesy i've been gone for quite a while and i guess i was a little nervous short we didn't violating the rules we didn't make the judge happy that we didn't violate any rules you know he didn't like it and it's sometimes we are you don't please a judge and i certainly don't want him in that spot again but we didn't violate his sentencing order we didn't bite any rules he posted we asked him to look at some case law elicits with our brief in one press release and by doing that it would have show