federal public defender's office you know the arguing three issues on appeal first is the district court erred by failing to consider all thirty five fifty three a factors when deciding whether to impose the fully consecutive seventy five month sentence that  required him to thirty five eighty four v and that was respect for the law thirty five fifty three a has seven more factors and that they were nowhere discussed and i recognize that this court's decision in mandia says that you do not have to discuss th but it does did say that you have to consider all of them and the district court didn't do so so that by itself demonstrates procedural error and for that reason the district court did not properly exercise its discretion when it decided to impose the fully consecutive sentences that it did that she does i think she said something to the effect of something that in effect addressing the issue of marginal punishment then he needed the marginal punishment offense if it's not fully consecutive but that's not at all true and that he that the district court should have discussed thirty five to three factors more fully your honors comment about how she basically reached the conclusion that she did doesn't tell us about the factors that she lied about specifically has to be consecutive determination that she did what did he want her to be talking about which one on one or ones in particular he didn't specifically raise any the statute requires that that's the area well i mean that you don't have to talk about things that if they're just sometimes we say dr arguments or the like you know so usually a defendant is going to say you know there's a that if there was a mitigating argument that was presented this is a statutory requirement under thirty five before be the statutory factors be considered and as it will be relevant in the later portion of the argument if you were to be saying that relate to thirty five eighty four be read fireman's in the criteria of the guidelines and now get into the next portion of the argument and that is it's highly relevant to the next section that is when the district courts exercising its discretion to impose a consecutive or can and sentence five g one point three b is also part of the district court's analysis and in this case the district court made mistake of and it's because the p s are referred to thirty five excuse me section five g one point three c instead of b and that was incorrect the district court got off track then in that further regard it should have considered and i think that  had first of all relied on the appropriate guideline manual which it did not do it relied on the two thousand and thirteen if there are big differences between the two ends enormous the government's brief cites the italicized language for the relevant change in the language for five g one point three b and it bears significantly on the determination of relevant conduct the relevant conduct in this case mind you we have two separate fences we have the legal reentry case which there's a separate p s r pair for each charge separately and then we have the separate drug offense the district court makes no determination about whether or not the illegal rianne treaty is relevant conduct and surely it is as a matter of fact the district court well it's i don't believe quite on its radar about the relevant conduct determination because again it is off base it's looking at five g one point three b c and setter five g one point three c rather than five  three b the district court fails to consider what is relevant conduct but as the transcript shows the district court asked did he come back in part to commit the drug offense so this would be on the district court's radar it would consider that the illegal reentry by coming back and be present in the country having access to the drugs having access to the customers to make the distributions the whole supply that is relevant one your honor has his illegal presence in the united states was essential for him to conduct his drug operation that you did mention from to do anything else to you know go to church on sunday and you know whatever the district court as i indicated in pages fourteen and fifteen of the transcript seem to think that he had come back although it says not specifically you're not solely in the country to deal drugs just reports  thought and i believe correct was that he came back in part to sell legal drugs that would make it relevant conduct relevant conduct of find myself in a strange position i'm arguing that it's bro give you a recording of this argument i mean it seems to me it's a very broad position indeed because being in the country is a prerequisite to do virtually anything you do in this country whether it's legal or illegal and so i'm afraid there's no limiting principle he relied specifically on his legal presence to commit the acts that were part of the drug offense and while you know you can certainly be a drug criminal of doing business in the united states from a foreign country and yet he was watching them all the time true but that's just seems like either way you look at it it's not either necessary or so bishop not necessary or sufficient but relevant yes it is a relevant act and so it falls within the parameters of the guidelines a very broad definition under one b one three eight one a it's an act that is relevant conduct and should have been considered as such don't go back to the just thirty five fifty three situation because in addition to asking whether he hasn't come what you haven't covered means she made it really clear what she was looking for because she says i believe we've covered the disparity the wife's illness hills his illness what else what are the factors i just want to make sure we've got everything covered that you won't cover and then just the thirty five fifty three factors of his own personal history his family situation and then counsel says that's it so anything else you want to add so we put it in context i mean so  back to the question the judge would have and i have the same question of what else should have been covered that she didn't cover i know you said all the factors she she what else specifically should have been covered that might have had an impact on th were not making the argument the judge failed to consider mitigating arguments such that she made any air with respect to garcia sugiura that's not our position all we're saying that the judge is required to make thirty five fifty three eighty terminations both for the imposition sentence and particularly under support for us in saying that you must consider the factors thirty five fifty three as they relate to thirty five eighty four furthermore if the district court did not ever if it had correctly determined that five g one point three b was at issue instead of five g one point three c the district court would have naturally made the analysis it should have made the analysis it couldn't be excused for making the analysis those would all admit been determinations that would naturally implode and lead to are not required to make formal findings on everything actor but that fifty three but it also says it must consider that there's no evidence here that the judge specifically consider those factors in relation to the imposition of the consecutive sentence hurt yourself yes man but if there's a court you know that there are no rigid rules for it regarding what the court is required to pronounce when it comes to thirty five eighty four other discretion to determine whether this should be a concurrent or consecutive sentence the court then went on to discuss the seriousness of the offense the defense personal characteristics his history of having been deported from the country and coming back and it was very clear from the course discussion that what the court was doing was trying to in fact in her words trying to fashion its all to mid sentence meaning having in mind that this should be either consecutive a concurrent all of those factors that she went through factored into that there was no reason to explain all of this all over again because the district court had explained it thoroughly once already  in the very middle of its discussion of the thirty five fifty three factors that come to after discussion of the seriousness of the offense and the effect and the offender's personal characteristics and history of deportation and right before the need to avoid sending the sensing disparities where the district court actually went agreed that a variance from the guideline range was appropriate to avoid unwanted disparities and it comes out on the other thing that followed was at the district court agreed that a variance would be appropriate because of basically that the defendant's history of kind of making it for himself in this country after having come here as a child is really doing that in your resources she thought that was a credit to him it's a discussion of his personal history characteristics and that discussion or explain to him why it should be concurrent falls right in the middle of this extended discussion of the thirty fifty factors there's no reason why it should have just elaborated all over again and i think that's the reason why the defendant when asked is there anything i fail to cover here said no and that really does amount to a waiver he the defendant has agreed at sensing that a thorough explanation has been given and there's no need to discuss any of the range was eighty seven to one hundred eight so it is some twelve months a year below the low end of the range that's for the really you know as for this guideline error issue we don't think there was a guidelines were in effect in the sense it took place after the twenty fourteenth amendment so that the offense level for the drug amount had come down and the parties discussed that and the district court said well under the new guidelines your offense level has come down so we're going to employ the new offense that the indication was that she was using the current guideline dog so but whether she was applying the current i book  guideline book either way in order for that provision of the guidelines that the defendants referring to to come into a fact the offense of the drug offense and the illegal  enough so for those reasons we asked the decision to support sentence before and then in terms of the reasons for supervised release not explicitly i mean they were not orally pronounced not all right that's problem with the supervisor of this condition ok ok thank you thank you but this is not a simple temporal overlap and so direct some direction from this court probably be important not that this is more than time this is about physical presence in coming back to what purpose and ending gauging what additional criminal acts and those are all relevant something that goes beyond time and in a sense if the guidelines are correctly applied in the factors are statutory factors are kicked out appropriately the guidelines don't call for the sentence that was given the guidelines basically call for thirty six month sentence to be imposed consecutive to the forty one month sentence because the guidelines say that the relevant conduct divisions would require consent concurrent sentence for the total sentence that was cases run it against the amount of time that was imposed in the illegal reentry case the resulting range would be considerably lower than the sentence that was given here in this case so for these three reasons we asked the district court for three reasons spelled out the brief we