good morning your honor my name is now of the strong and i represent the youth d r l this case presents a serious issue in terms of what we call the abuse of discretion by the judge impartial questioning of certain witnesses and then his final determination that de r l did not exhibit remorse to a sufficient degree as he would have liked and as well that d r l was not entitled to an if you will implicitly remorse and acceptance by their place of guilty and i said well the probation officer in the pre sentence investigation also recommended for an acceptance of responsibility and i would like to point out for the record that although dionne was late extremely late in submitting his written statement the pre sentence does indicate that fervently in the meeting with the pre sentence officer he did accept responsibility let me ask you questions about the judge he and i had a cloak we later on he said mistry i was just trying to determine that the timing of the apology letter the letter accepting responsibility that's not so the question my client's father with happened what's wrong with that and i'm looking at that card he said i have a question what would you want done if you were sitting in that chair right here as the father of the victim what would you want done to this young man i think that's taking a partisan i think that's taking a prosecutorial role and that was echoed throughout all of this question none of this question was to clarify for example with dr barco would this be more appropriate with that the more appropriate it was all hinged on the credibility determinations which we know get wrapped up in the m m p i and the different type of scales they use later on your honors when he finally made his determination and the disposition he talked largely about hugh misread the letters of support that came in there was that a comment in one about the victim he said that he saw that type of attitude throughout all of the letters and he was troubled because those letters of support didn't mention of the fact well we know when you go to a juvenile some someone on probation and then ordering two years confinement is not a sense of purpose a disposition of probation with all due respect i wish that i had addressed that very case and says that you know but i think if you look at the logic and the it would have followed dr baucus recommendation and my recommendation the sentencing memorandum to keep this young man in his home he had outpatient treatment both for alcohol and sex offender type programming available my feelings area which is less than an hour from this home his father testified his father's a schoolteacher very knowledgeable testify that he would be supportive and make sure that he exhibited strict rental discipline so that d r would attend all that probing and follow up with children under the age of three this is a peer related sex office the other gross abuse of discretion was the judge mentioned when i questioned that he started it off that is not true he had a brother with a similar first name i believe the judge ma confused that the judge may have thought that with regard to certain allegations of an only intercourse and insertion of a bottle in the victim's vagina my client did those things but he made no specific findings and that's an abuse of discretion because if he was thinking primary purpose is to redevelop children and there's good language now for the market looking at the least restrictive alternative just people clearly did not do that this case needs to go back on greenland so that the judge can clarify and develop a  completely clean offender for the most part no alcohol problems except for this incident and a low risk of tender ruther very thank you it's a brand new facility that's been opened in my town and it was not available at the time sticking with pens at that time we were sending kids to the california youth authority and sometimes up to texas now is that a hybrid is that your honor i think you're correct that she did not raise it would be an interesting issue to brief because that's a very standard sentence especially in the district of montana and in the districts probably also of arizona and new mexico where we have a lot of juvenile after he's pled guilty and in front of the person who's going to stand up in court need a recommendation because this young woman that he is raped a whore and shows absolutely no remorse or acceptance of his responsibility in this room the judge says i don't understand i don't understand this kind of attitude at the top of the page he goes on to talk about the letters that basically say there's no credibility in this victim's testimony and that the very end he says that on line twenty one how if i send him back immediately to that environment how is this going to take make you take responsibility i can go on and on about the discrepancies in this case and the fact that most impressed that she wants the next page it's his failure to take any responsibility for himself and then he sa i am a firm believer in the proposition that even under the juvenile system of justice punishment and deterrence our purposes and that is not in odds with c k and as a matter of fact it goes specifically with a case from this court united states versus juvenile that was i'm going to go home with my dad i don't need to be punished in any fashion and i will just be in my community and so i have to use a specific words anywhere but i think it's very implicit in his discussion and he has been talking out loud about how on earth could i just send him back home to this kind of an environment with the kind of attitude that he has and so i think he has made the the discussion it's the case that for about least restrictive alternatives plus we have to keep in mind he's not committing him he's placing on probation of the train general to the age of twenty one still a period of about seven years and the first eighteen months were recommended in treatment and then there was no discussion afterwards about where he was to go or what he was to do and if he could work was particularly troubled by the fact that there would be no transition that there was no supervision where in this case what the court did with say you are in need of specialized treatment i'm going to put in here for that treatment for two years then you have three more years of probation that will be supervision that will be transition in order to help you take issue with the majority opinion in stick a because the facts were actually that the court's order was commitment to late twenty one with a recommendation for placement at our home in south dakota which was at the time the facility closest to his home although that's not made clear from the record with at least eighteen months of recommended treatment it doesn't say you can't go on farther and as we all know in these cases after treatment takes longer than eighteen months or even longer than two years the other the rules text fourteen issue where he didn't call the witnesses the court didn't but question the witnesses and ask them some clarifying questions they knew of haro case that i submitted to the court by letter brief on august twelfth squarely on point with this and noted that the judge allowed cross examination which happened here that the defendant did not challenge the credibility of the witnesses in this case these were his own witnesses that he put up and the judge was bringing out some points that were very troubling to hear the judge did not in this case distort