in fact i think they're very important even in considering the third issue the first issue i did raise was the one of the evidence clearly showing there was no connection between the war and not rejecting this enhanced factor of the firearm because of sentencing and track that is the whole situation was manipulated by the agents to create the commodities certainly the drugs were an illegal commodity yes and the guns in many instances were illegal commodities certainly under the circumstances but they w parallel transactions they were not connected to each other very with dictated solely by the agents who are doing the ordering will take this on this day specifically the price is a negotiated and the remains the law certainly as to the first part of them like that is sentencing got guidelines are unconstitutional as applied in that situation where the judge makes that the judge is required to find follow unless he comes up with a departure the only difference between adeline and the case decided after the submission of greece united states versus booker is the result what can they do to remedy this unconstitutional crisis and i have aligned the courts so what we do is we have juries decide these facts and then the consequences that is the mandatory sentencing guidelines can plot on the book or the court said no you don't have juries find them you simply take away the mandatory requirement so the range without the guideline without the enhanced and the lower range with your hands when you used the phrase statutory maximums yes are you referring to the statu are many steve millers around the country and i get the view from chicago virginia and the secret service almost took me into detention because they thought that i was i was in new york on a conference and the sentencing guidelines and in this case there was harmless error because the guidelines in this case calculated the defendant's range of one hundred thirty to one hundred sixty two months he was sentenced to one hundred  guidelines at a time when he thought those brackets constrained his discretion is that correct yes but in this case based on a finding the  that the intent of that district court was that he was going to impose that sentence anyway in this case the clear greenmount judge you don't say anywhere in the record this is this would have been my standards even if there weren't any guidelines no but what he in this plea agreement the defendant was given a plea agreement that allowed him to reduce the minimum mandatory from one hundred twenty to six months to sixty months and the primary purpose behind that was when he was indicted for the one hundred twenty minimum month minimum mandatory the guidelines were subsequently benefit of that reduced offense level he was given the opportunity to have a reduced minimum mandatory seek downward departures seek downward adjustments and oppose the upward adjustment for the possession of the gun and he availed himself of all of those and in this case he asked for a minimal rather than a minor role he asked for a downward departure for over represented criminal history category and he opposed the upward adjustment for the gun now the the argument in this case is that it was not connected or that it that was connected with the drug offense was the first time that it was was never a reason lower court this appeals the first time it was ever raised and if you look on the defendant's objections which are in the supplemental  and in this case i don't the one hundred thirty months is not an unreasonable assumption it's especially in the circumstances of this defendant's conduct well what bothers me is how we can review for reasonable why understand that then and whether to remain in light of that what i believe the record shows as a reasonable sentence will be left to the court because now there's a lot of hammering out that has to be done with  book or decisions especially since so many have been stayed and held in payment pending that decision but in this case we have a court that reviewed all the circumstances  well as the gunman handsome and now in this case if you look at the beginning of the sentencing the probation officer made a comment fein well we put that in the  pre sentence report even though it's against the pleader and the court then said well i think that the gun enhanced what is appropriate but if i believe that it's against the  and then i pointed out that the pleading that said no your honor i reserve the right to seek that he reserve the right to oppose it yeah from what we can deduce from erms without any consideration whatsoever of the of the firearms that would be probably be ok but in this case he didn't do that he considered the firearm i'm reasonably yes but the  vocal decision says that now sentences are going to be reviewed for reasonable notice but reasonable notice will be gauged by the now advisory guidelines and is the position of the government that sentences within the guideline guidelines try to for the last fifteen years have tried to convey yes and i just the sentences so that there would be some kind of uniformity around the i think mr miller's fame comes from the fact that his father was the first u s attorney in the southern district of california and had the good fortune of succeeding him at one point this or miller is trying to raise from the dead the sentencing guidelines back to a mandatory requirement that is there presented be readable and therefore if with within the guidelines the reason the question really should be current to reverse it judge can come forward and be ready when we return we'll be back in