because he has some additional stigma for you for something in the record where he has there is a record of him being revoked when there should not be that i think the government even conceded that i revocation i think the government's position as i understand it is that mr auger is not harmed because the seventeen month sentence was imposed concurrently and so he's does not have to serve any additional time the collateral consequences that you're talking about leafy now he seems doesn't seem unimaginable that he would have another run in with the law and that this would be another conviction that would be accounted for and sentenced well that's part of his runner yes and i think while it might be unlikely to the extent that someone would find out about this that's also not a flattering fact in family your honor i just think it is problematic for the court in addition so your honor we think that this case should be reversed on plain error for those reasons in addition our nd argument as i'm sure your honor is for miller with  sentence that that was imposed we would respectfully suggest was substantially and reasonable it was a sentence that was more than double the guideline range and in imposing that sentence the district court relied entirely as i understand it on chapter seven of the sentencing guidelines seventy one four north fork or the guideline says that if the defendant had  note is a riginal sentence in mr all geir did receive a rule thirty five on his original sentence however your honor i think as your as the court reviews the records in this case the district court while gave she gave lip service to the original sentence was primarily concerned with what she viewed as a lenient sentence at the revocation hearing at the previous revocation hearing  chapter of the guidelines seven b one point four but then also your honor it is a variance based on this one guideline that is double the guideline clearly gives guidance to all district courts that where courts are very they should be very the variances should be supported by proportional justification and i what i would argue the court is even if a variance is warranted in this case upward it seems hard to imagine that reason could support a variance that would double the guideline range in so your honor we  think that also warrants a full recent unseen in this case the government i think is critical of our position they think that the current concurrent sentencing doctrine should rule the day here of course your honor i think the case they rely heavily on is the harris case from the th circuit of course sex is the one in the th circuit but number two is different from this case understand under what scenario the government would see a sentence reversed for being on reasonable you know they're either their language or something like you know did the court consider policy statements and fifty three dollars a factors if it did then it's ok if that is simply the analysis that any court has to go through than it's hard to imagine any time this court would reverse a sentence for being on reasonable but here here but there is a case in front of the court where he received a sentence twice what the guidelines called for and i would argue to the court that that is not  supported by the by the by the guidelines in this case it in by the united states supreme court and all i think i'm coming close to my rebuttal time i think out there will conclude my comments unless your honor had any other questions on nature and circumstances of the violation conduct as well as the criminal history of the defendant and fact the court went on extensively about the finance criminal history his son has some ten prior convictions for retail theft criminal damage to property thought from the st revocation hearing that the they were the original revocation was based upon both so everyone was at a disadvantage in fact the sentencing guideline calculations document six thirty seven dollars it goes to the court had outlying two in fact that i believe the court at the st revocation hearing advised on both the penalties that's on page five of that transcript so i think it was just an error that it really was meant to be on counts one in ten but it didn't show up in the jamesy that way so clearly there was an error because of that because it wasn't objected to it would be a plain error analysis and and simply the defendant can't meet his burden burden on the plane or analysis that effect is his substantial rights what about the collateral consequences and if there was a miscarriage of justice in terms of the collateral consequences i really don't think there are any there is want it's two counts one conviction there's one jane see this isn't like it's a separate conviction  itself it's two counts out of one j and c so it really has it really has no impact i don't think it really has any stigma the defendant has quite a lengthy criminal history as it is so you know i think the district court got it right and not only did she get it right based upon the criminal history and the violation conduct i think appellant has is putting too much emphasis on the fact that they think the district court just looked at the st revocations lenient sentence and thought that was the whole reason and it was proper for the court to go back and look at seventy one four application no four wherein it is entirely appropriate in another cell to go upward based upon a previous downward departure which the defendant got twenty or thirty three months one hundred and seventy five months i think what's important note here is that it's only a thirteen month and he the appellant says well that's double but quite honestly the the district court could have imposed a fifty three month sentence that would have been a statutory max not twenty four months so this is not a improper sentence it's reasonable based upon the criminal history as well as the guidelines and we would ask that you affirm the i would like to do for the court but it is true that all of us were of labor under the impression that there were is true terms of supervised release being revoked or we're not one to make sure that the court was where  seems totally not ready to me that if a court knows something shouldn't be there that they would allow it to be there on this this means record forever will if if the sentence is clearly erroneous or i'm sorry it isn't reasonable then only being thirteen months is i would say it's thirteen months is all right i think it's wrong to characterize thirteen months as only it's a lot of time to mr auger now we would treat a one month error in guideline calculations as plain error the supreme court cases when they when they consider whether something is concurrent or consecutive is outlined in briefs even a special assessment is viewed as enough to make something important and so here there is a an iranian's record of a revocation and i would submit that the stigma is a collateral consequence that is significant and that kind of double the guidelines is i don't i don't think so your honor i think that the concurrence instance doctrine as i understood it has a number of facets to it but that where there is an extra conviction as i understand the case law where there is an extra conviction but it doesn't change the amount of time that courts can get rid of that extra conviction now sometimes i think it's different if the different is contesting the length of the sentence and all i can think of your honor i do think that stigma is something the supreme court involved recognized as a collateral consequences and support reversal in a