consider to be the most important issue which is the district court's refusal or failure to grant or even address mr i bet is the quest for a downward departure based on his military history and his document in many ways were uniquely within his skill set as an arab american and in part because of that but also just because of how awful war is he came back with massive massive psychological injuries and those injuries are absolutely clear in the record in the testimony of dr and throughout all of his the a medical records which are provide chaotic violent events were hurrying mr ahmed heatedly going to the v a to the veteran's hospital to seek help because he felt that he was losing control but twenty five years ago the medicine in the medical establishment was not such as it is today where there's a much greater understanding of post traumatic stress disorder than there was the and they just all get bulk words and europe and they primarily addressed it with medication which in many cases made the were robberies all involving drugs other drug dealers and drug users and then he was arrested and he was faced with a sentence that was that it was determined by t express request for a downward departure at the nd sentencing it looked to me like the original sentencing memorandum asked for within guidelines sentence so was there a separate motion made later actually that's an interesting question the looking man whether there was a departure requested in one thousand nine hundred and ninety eight or whether the part was requested here in both places they were not can they were not considered for differing reasons judge wilson said i don't need a departure but the government was asking for five hundred and ninety five months and i think five hundred and seventy months is white and i can do that with the existing existing circumstances judge urbanski didn't consider departure because he basically thought the bearing on its mission to the others and relation to the conduct justified three hundred and sixty ones which is an upwards level of seventy months and he's now getting three hundred and sixty well the same conduct anneli and the image as you know the guidelines are conduct oriented and the instruction in the guidelines is to come up with a single a single to explain why i was doing the parents big if not ordered structurally you just can't discount what he said i mean he said clearly i'm creating a variant sentence he created the guidelines correctly from a guideline range and there is a lot of reference to five hundred and seventy s sort of the benchmark but the government is asking for five hundred and seventy or something like fifty seven days so isn't it fair for the district court i mean you can understand it as a district court just explaining why it is not going along with the government's doctrine does not apply i am not saying i am saying that it does not apply to the extent where especially where from this letter a thirty year barry answer the parcher would never have i don't believe happened there is no  the rehabilitation and he talked about the post syndrome and he talked about but he was very impressed also bob this was a very serious crime the said one of the worst he'd ever seen the government said the birds same thing and he talked about how the community was terrorized for years and so and he talked about the relevance to the other dependents and there's drama asked for three hundred and twelve said that you're not saying that the sentencing package doctrine doesn't apply here and i understand that you sort of started your argument with this or procedural reasonableness questions about what happened at sentence then but a good part of your brief was about but now you're saying you're not objecting to application of the sentencing package doctrine so where have you or are you continuing to press the argument that the district court lacked the legal authority to impose a sentence you know that this is extraordinarily severe underlying because this is this is really really up but i'm not going to go as high as the government wants me to go and that's because of all these mitigating this mitigating evidence that i've spent so what for what this court  the court explains that to the extent that it's clear from the record that the court considered an address arguments and it's clear what the court's rationale is that the court has adequately satisfied sentencing varied i'm laid out in cases like that i think that's precisely what we have here it can you respond directly to your colleague said end and i just see this in the record and it troubled me to some extent that although the court does start by laying out the guidelines you know it's we're well into the transcript it's been a long time what by and since then by the time the government i'm sorry the court really starts discussing this mitigating evidence and it does keep discussing it in terms of this is a reason for me to go down from five hundred and seventy months on reducing the sentence from five hundred and seventy months and it does never say i'm going up from two hundred and thirty five months it doesn't say that and so it does seem that when the myopia focus on five hundred and seventy is a starting point might have had kind of a weird anchoring effect here and brought the district court to a different place than it would have ended if it had been focus on two hundred and thirty five dollars and how far up it was going the short answer your rationale and what additional ones do and that means that he does not there's no magic words are you not specifically saying anything just mean no no i guess i'm not suggesting that there's a nance problem here or a failure to discuss or account for the mitigating evidence incredibly full explanation of why he is going under five hundred and seventy dollars but less it even in the loop is never expressed lee closed that this is why this degree of upward variance is required not appropriate however given the various mitigating factors that were discussed the evidence that was given during sentencing hearing he was not going to go as high as recommend and i think that pretty easily pretty clearly reflects what had happened during the hearing and so although he doesn't specifically say i'm going to vary upwards because assent because the underline the fact that you speak smokable imes about the severity of the  those issues that were foremost in the defendant's mind in relate them to the guidelines if he ever did that in the transcript so what he did in the transcript is he calculated the so and this is after he said multiple times that he's going to sit so he doesn't specifically say this is the military service pacifically impacts this part of my calculation but what he does say is i'm calculating the guidelines the in the defense asked for a reduction in what was he meaning here then in terms of reduction reduction from what you're out of the way that i would read that so the defense is characterize their arguments in terms of a reduction from i mean what would be debates that he is thinking about when he's talking about the reduction given that he your honor given that the way that he has phrased that is the defense arguing for a reduction up i would correlate at dances arguments that related to a downward departure or based on the chapter five elements that were discussed during sentencing and so he's calculating the guidelines  saying they argue for reduction of the guidelines however at the end of the day on balance given all these factors this is what i'm going you know it seems to me i don't know if this is a right reading and obviously the  the discussion that's goes over a long period of time with the court what it's considering what it's not considering but it looks to me that the last question that it posed to the government before it really began its sense and it's what are you requesting in the government says we're requesting five hundred and seventy months and the court said i do not believe that a sentence in the range of five hundred and seventy months meets or anywhere near meets the statutory obligations that i'm to impose here in this plenary the sentencing and so it seems to me that in the judge's mind i don't know if this is up there reading so in that analysis it is rejecting the government and then explaining this is a new man he's a different man and we have new factors in the judge explain that too and  so we're going to get these statements that he's not going to give the government the five hundred and seventy but i'm not sure that the judge was focusing as much on what judge wilson had imposed although he does historically relate to that as he's trying to respond to the government but i may be wrong and i can judge harris pointed out a couple of comments that suggested he was somewhat fixated with the five hundred and seventy and he was but it looks like he was because the government was pressing that your honor i think that's an absolutely correct description of characterization of what happened i think the government was pressing for quite and i think the rationale of the court i think is relatively clearly divined from the transcripts here and from what you said that the governor was asked to provide seventy and while he thought he needed to come above the guidelines guy and he's telling the government he's explaining i'm not going to go that way and i don't think that's necessary particularly in light of all of the circumstances that i see but the fact that he's also continually referring to the so there to the underlying conduct and the culpability  indicates that he still feels the need to come above the guideline range and i think that sort of pretty clearly captures precisely what he's doing here and that is an adequate explanation under sort of this court precedent in cases like manson part it's clear from the record what the court decided not to go as high as the government wants to go in coming down from that five hundred and seven months that was the previously impose sentence because of all the mitigating evidence that didn't show so he refers to five hundred and seventy two the government is asking for and because that was sentence this robert had been serving so well that wasn't his starting benchmark it was it was certainly something that was i think relevant to understanding what was happening in this case and the governor was asking for the same thing you've explained i don't think we need to go up to that i don't think statement simply says i'm taking in the consideration no i get this like what was the judge required to do it by way of explanation that he didn't do i understand your argument about how he used the fi seven views the base or at least in some parts of the transcript appears to be what what was he required to do in turn to terms of procedural reasonableness in dealing with the sentence was such that even though we got every you know enhancement or was if you still think he needs more time bring it up to reach well but don't go further than that because he had devastating thank you after medication evidence directly relevant  you were asking for a sentence that wasn't a downward departure of right now you're saying you were asking for downward departure so  well done and we hope we can shake your head in the future in person but this will have to serve at this moment in time