it your honor is this appeal raises one primary issue with three sub issues and that's whether mr stevens sentences prestigious a reasonable for three reasons and center around the district courts failure to address sentence and both of those things happened in this particular case so when you focus on the actual reasons given by the district court your honors cannot have confidence based on this record that there was not procedural error didn't even mention the terms three thousand five hundred and fifty three day but to the court failed to mention much less addressed his principle three principal non frivolous arguments in mitigation of a sentence which included his diminished capacity based on mental health diagnoses a report from a forensics like a clinical psychologist and sex offender evaluator testing to his very low risk of recidivism and three a policy disagreement with each child pornography guidelines that were announced in dorothea's nd circuit chase which and its progeny which those were also discussed by a senior united states probation officer who made us a sensing recommendation in this case and that leads to these thirds of issue which is the court fail to explain why the recommendation of an experience probation officer for a sentence substantially below the officer recommendation i think there are some veteran law clerks in our court who are very able lawyers who provide great recommendations to members of this court about how they ought to  not necessarily but in this particular case to differ here so to make a provision to be rationed officer probation officers work for the court a lot of places those recommendations aren't even disclosed to  sounds may not be the judge may disagree with it but doesn't need to engage with you know on the record you're here on or respectfully i think the difference in this particular case is that once it's released and once it's relied upon lawyer talks about in holland mr stevens sentence should be even lower in a sentence that is already substantially below the advisory guideline range it logic dictates that if the if the probation officer whose job function is to give advice to a federal judge make recommendations to a federal judge and has vast experience with the guidelines and also has a very lengthy rationale or support for this proposed sentence that it ought to be considered it wouldn't make any sense that a probation officer provides a recommendation if it was meaningless and you are her worst of the judge just like a judge in hamilton the basis for a judicial determination of the sentence the rule the rule of procedure well thirty two it allows for attorneys to comment on probation officers determinations in part or matters that can affect the sentence that's really this this could affect the sentence and again it's not enough in act particularly to comment on it correct yes but we don't know that it was considered a based upon this record there is zero suggestion at all that the court actually consider the recommendation of the season probation officer when he went to court let me ask you mr goldberg i know when i'm when i was a brand new district judge welcomes recommendations from probation officer escalade more about the process and i did after more than ten years on the district court i often had a lot more experience than the probation officers giving me advice does your argument depend upon the level of the probation officers experience that really i don't know that it does i get so if i'm if i'm a veteran district judge and i've got a rookie probation officer giving me advice i've got to address that in court and explain on the record why i'm rejecting that new officers advice under your theory i under my theory that a case where he's reminded time principally and it's and it's it's reference and it ought to be addressed obviously logic dictates that a more experienced probation officer can probably get a better recommendation by we're not what we're not saying it and every case the court would have an obligation to explain why it disagrees with the probation officers recommendation but when you respect maybe let me ask you about you your st two points and dr travis's report in the diminished capacity essence this seems to me more like an aggravating circumstance particularly in light of mr stevens return to collecting child pornography after the police of common of mr stevens's difficulties in mental illness here are two had to address this directly i think that you're you're guessing here is the weather that's really an astounding rejection of this because i could see how a district court judge would say well the f b i raids your house and then you collect more pornography so you're at risk the receipt of it but what he did not address and he did not specifically even reference a twenty six page report from an experience perfection on sex offender evaluator was that he has a lower risk of recidivism and there's an explanation based in in medicine here that he is a hoarder and he's treatable and this is something that ought to be addressed pornography after the search and whether the judge wanted to reject that and whether he found that the he doctor's opinion was was worthless that that's not clear from the record and that's the point there isn't it there is absolutely nothing to suggest that he gave any real consideration to a twenty six page report just just by saying that he reviewed the party submissions he didn't specifically reference an about expert as well it's not clear from the record as if that's our position and what's also important is that he did not suggest that he read the sensing recommendation of the probation officer and related no he says he reviewed the pre report review submissions but he didn't say that he reviewed the sensing recommendation which is separate and apart from a pre sentence report it comes separate when it is ordered released by the judge as it was in this case thank you thank you defendant's likelihood of recidivism and rehabilitation as well as general deterrence as this court has previously concluded the district court need not explicitly articulate conclusions with respect to every factor the court must simply give  arguments the district court a program appropriately addressed each of defendant's arguments in mitigation with respect to mental health the record reflects that in the court's discretion it appropriately treated defendant's mental health as an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one district court dedicated time to discussing defendant's conduct and his mental health specifically the court stated that in digesting defendant  statement it is hard for me to believe that defendant was unable on his own to realize the pure evil of these images and that speaks to me of an inability that i find hard to comprehend the court further stated after two on foresman arm of the federal government goes into your home and kept its gates the material and kept its confiscate your computers surely that anyone would know that this was not conduct that you can undertake the district court concluded that if the defendant could not understand the seriousness and consequences of his actions this factor increased defendant's risk for recidivism and indeed lowered his likelihood of rehabilitation and of course spoke to that specifically concerned about the silence with respect to dr travers this is the defense says that's that's really the centerpiece of the mitigation argument presented to the district court and if i recall correctly or even see mention of dr travis by name or even a reference to his report in the explanation of the sentence or in the in the court's treatment of his that is correct there is no specific mention of dr report however the court need not mention the report by name or the expert by name to respond to its substance or to respond to the report and here the district court did address the substance of the report and defendant's related arguments the report was limited for one purpose its conclusion the defendant was a low risk for recidivism and for all the reasons that i discussed already that i just mentioned the court clearly disagreed with this conclusion the defendant the district court now aged and disagreed with the defendant's argument that since defendant's compulsion is were treatable that he was a lower risk to reciprocate the court did not agree with this there is a correlation specifically the court said i'm happy for the defendant that he has taken some steps to begin a process that will undoubtedly take a long time and as to which there is no actual certainty of success in attempting to understand himself and his need to take pleasure in the pain and routinely or not and can you tell us about disclosure practices in the northern district with respect to probation officers recommendations but i hesitate to speak to that generally because i don't want to move over step but in this case i can say that the government did ask for the recommendation in some cases in my personal experience the court will on its own include with regard to you then it occurred to me regarding the permissions recommendation as this court has explained and even recently probation such a thing recommendation only informs a judge's sentencing decision they do not bind a judge or otherwise limit the judge's discretion accordingly a district court is free to disagree with probations recommendation without further explanation nonetheless as discussed here the record reflects of the district court explain the reasons it wasn't willing to go below the guidelines based on this record the dish accord did not commit procedural error it properly calculated the guidelines range it appropriately consider the section three thousand five hundred and fifty three a factors and it adequately explained its chosen sentence unless a court has furthe questions for the reason stated here and in our brief the government respectfully requests that this court affirm the district court sentence thank you counsel thanks to both counsel and the case is taken under advi