good morning your honors john wallenstein for mr saunders this is really very simple argument mr saunders got twelve years i think you should have gotten ten which is what the other two defendants got and i think that judge fewer steams reason for imposing the additional two years was clearly that mr saunders is older than the others she as much  you can see that the sentence was well below the guideline range well i have a problem with the career offender guideline and i understand that but the guidelines are the guideline range was two hundred and sixty two to three hundred and twenty seven says is well she departed two hundred and forty four months from two hundred and sixty two dollars at the bottom but for the other guys she departed a little bit more and that therefore so complaint is that he didn't get as much of a break but i look at it from the other direction and that is the plea agreement contemplated a ten year sentence at the time of the plea government had access to his prior record but i know that i didn't and so what we discussed in the plea negotiations was well all right he'll take the discharge and he'll get his ten and everybody will be happy except my client who's doing the ten years and so i look at it as she gave the ten year sentence to mr bourne's and to mr brown as everybody contemplated and then she tacked on two years to mr saunders because he was older another way to look at it is that she came in and the others came because they were young well yeah that's what the government says and that that would that's right that's what she said and as i thought that thirty one was young then and i still do but i do see it as a distinction between excuse me i'm with you there younger than mr saunders i could be wrong he was twenty seven when the crime was committed i believe that one of the others may have been eighteen and the other was about twenty something in that range what's more there is less of an argument on behalf of your client that his youth and inexperience contributed to the offense and therefore i'm going to give the other guys a break or alternatively i'm going to treat your guy a little bit nineteen or twenty i find that much more troubling than my client being labeled a career offender because he had been involved in a high school fight some ten years prior and the the attempted robbery conviction was was really just a cell phone snatch and i'm not belittling that as a crime but it's not the same as planning a robbery and going out with a gun and that kind of thing isn't there a difference  i think that's just for to us my client was a better shot and he i don't mean to be facetious but when he hit the target they didn't that doesn't mean they were any less culpable for shooting at  someone i see equal culpability on all three and i think they should have been sentenced to the same to the same sentence the the same ten year sentence where any a procedural jackson's raise below i raised  objection and i'm a did raise an objection at the time to the career offender designation to me but that apparently was resolved a you please the court assistant united states attorney michael murphy behalf of the united states in this matter your honors the sentence imposed by the district was both procedurally and substantively reasonable st the district court did not commit plain error in imposing one hundred and forty four months since upon saunders in this case st the defendant's guidelines were properly calculated that they were adopted by the court as found in the pre sentence investigation report the guidelines in this case were very straightforward indeed they weren't objected to at the sentencing proceeding nor were they the guidelines calculation itself being contested here merely that the manner in which the court found those guidelines next the district court's consideration of saunders age in imposing the sentence also it was a proper consideration for the court in this matter saunders age was cited by the court in deciding what sense to impose under that career offender guideline as opposed to the argument by counsel at the time of sentencing a reason to differentiate him from the co defendants as your honor just has been also pointed out the defendant caused different harms in this case and that was really the distinguishing factors so the consideration of age here was appropriate both the guidelines and the relevant case law do allow a district court to consider in a defendant's youth or immaturity in granting a downward departure here to defend his merely on arguing that the downward departure was not great enough compared to his codefendant who actually codefendant brown did not receive any downward departure he was sense to exactly with the guidelines work and codefendant barnes also was a creative career offender but was differentiated by the court for those reasons given that  those history and characteristics of the defendant and his involvement in the current offense or his participation in the offense charged with the two primary reasons cited by the court for the sense imposed those weren't the only three thousand five hundred and fifty three factors that the court considered the state  reasons that the court filed the district court also specifically pointed to the need for deterrence and protection of the public which given the facts of this case which was gang related shooting in which two people were left with bullet injuries as your honor noted severe bu one being struck in the arm the other in the testicles that this was an appropriate sentence of one hundred and forty four months he caused greater harm than the co defendants and that harm was clearly a consideration of the district court in imposing the sentence honor i believe at the time of the crimes committed by the relative defendants to mr saunders mr barnes and mr brown were both eighteen years of age i believe mr saunders was twenty seven years of age at the time of his commission the crime  that i think was that again that and the comparative harms caused by the defendants really i think is what drove the district court sentencing here so i think those considerations were reasonable turning to the substantive reasonable this claim here obviously a district court is well settled has wide discretion and latitude in imposing a sentence i do believe here the sentence of one hundred and forty four months is no way shockingly high given the nature of the crime in the harm caused by this defendant and if there are no questions of the court over a lion or refer the remainder thank you just really briefly i don't see anywhere in the transcript were judge feuerstein said because your client actually hit someone with the bullets and the other two didn't that you made any differentiation in the harm that was caused by the shootings her primary reason and she said considering all the factors including your client's history and his participation but she considered that with the others as well and his age being higher than the others i'm going to give him more time and she added twenty percent that's a significant difference and i think that's the only reason she did it and i don't think that's