appealing both mr turner's conviction of three count conviction of conspiracy to possess more than five hundred grams of methamphetamine with intent to distribute possession five hundred grams intent to distribute of methamphetamine and we're also challenging in our third issue whether the government met its burden of proof as to the one thousand three hundred fifty grams that was found by the jury on counts one  confine my argument to that last issue as to whether or not his sentence was reasonable that's fine in this particular case mr turner had a prior drug conviction that  then brought about the government's filing an eight fifty one information which then raised his mandatory minimum from ten years to twenty years now now the government says that has the maximum  thirty years thirty years on count three and i believe the government and i have to concede that the government is correct on that my argument then that that was ten years and i am wrong conviction makes it a maximum of thirty years the question though then becomes on all three counts and she was sentenced concurrently is whether or not the three hundred month sentence that was imposed by the district court is a reasonable sentence and there's our position that that is an unreasonable now the government recently brought to this court's attention the decision in united know because there isn't a mandatory minimum on that particular i don't see i think generally speaking you don't penalize people for taking an appeal but the law has been you know it has obviously been moving in this direction in terms of this bunker fanfan and all that you know i think now we've got this a follower it hasn't the mandate hasn't issued but it's there's been a lot of changes that you know i i think that your client could maybe face thirty years well but at he couldn't get that on the well yes he could get that on the first two counts but i mean it would then be a that the statutory minimum was not adequate for these offenses and it was talking about all three offenses and even went on and this is on page fifteen of the excerpt just to say that it  the visor of guidelines were woefully inadequate the court just a comment about the statutory minimum was that that was inadequate as punishment for the offens an appropriate means of promoting correction and rehabilitation and the courts here was basically imposing this sentence as a means of punishment because the public because this is a young man that is was twenty eight at the time of sentencing is probably with a twenty five years sentence going to be fifty three before he would ever get out of prison with a twenty year sentence he's going to be in his late does say that i mean you have to cover them but you don't have to say i'm going one two three more as far as that goes but there were comments in the record in terms that the court goes through you know talks about what is you know considers the guidelines as is required and then makes comments about the nature and circumstances i think there are comments to the effect that  your client is a victim i seen a you know a group of individuals that are predisposed towards substance abuse and that that's part of it or how long history of criminal act eventual ised as to your client you want to respond to that well first i would respond to his criminal history because that actually went into the guideline calculation and it went into the eight fifty one information which gets us to the mandatory the court properly calculated guideline range for this to found that it also took into account the mandatory minimum caused by the eight fifty one information filed in this matter and then a proceeded to make it individual eyes to findings under thirty five fifty three a and i think that that the record is clear it made extensive findings in that regard it closely considered this individual as an individual that looked at his his past the circumstances of his crimes on and it concluded that given the circumstances that the guideline range in the mandatory minimum were inadequate and ultimately in viewing  and he went through all the factors and the statute he gave his thought on each one and you came to a conclusion that if you disagree with this conclusion maybe we do too but the point is i mean how can you say that the exercise he went through was not reasonable well i'm not sure it's a question of the exercise it's a question of whether the sentence itself is reasonable and the only reason you give the talk or why it's not a reason was because you disagree with it and all i what i pointed out was that they did the guideline i don't know that he was he was getting money from what he was doing to support his addiction well i think thank you but he's got that snap back there's a bag that has cash remember something here's a bag that had some cash in it yes it's more at any given time yeah but he also had an explanation for that that he was engaged in building these custom motorcycles that he gave both the highway patrol and and he told the  people that he was living within browning but i also think that it's it's not individual wise sentencings would be saying that he was picking on these people on the