and was not really reflected in the briefing on the record is that the filings that the court can see from from the record in the case of the parties here read extensively the issue of the statutory enhancement based upon the one nine hundred eighty four misdemeanor conviction rockland county that prior misdemeanor conviction triggered the statutory enhancement that expose mr griffith fifteen to forty years on counts wanted too and she says that just as if i ran it consecutively i could impose a guideline range sentence which would be the three hundred twenty four to four or five months in other words the statutory cap would be sixty years a government starts and jack the court talks over the government and says if you want me to refine that she's she's clearly as i read the transcript referring to that range and she says is that an accurate assessment and you said yes so i don't understand how that acceptance of responsibility would drop it to thirty four so with a criminal history category five produces a range of two thirty five to ninety three so in our culture rationale for two  she doesn't mean a benchmark a sentence on its own without regard to the guidelines means and what was going on in that latter discussion that you just referenced was clearly an attempt to explain her variance her nine guidelines sentence and guidelines terms which district judges have the authority to do but probably should not do because of the confusion that it creates and we've spent that before that departure analysis is obsolete the judges don't have to pick they're not guidelines sentences to the guidelines and you know percentages of discounts and how they might in the not once she knocked off the sentencing enhancement for the prior sexual abuse conviction so it was a clarification and the guidelines range from ain't constant throughout indeed your hono moderate and that with all the math and with all the different shifting parts that flowed from the court's determination a very important terminations that the statutory enhancement did not apply that's why i asked and recommended a sentence for mr griffith six years on each count to one current and much to our dismay that went on to impose twenty years per count i respectfully i realize the knowledge of swimming upstream against a very stiff current here we talk about substantive and reasonable sentences but after thirty seven years of practicing law and twenty four as a federal public defender scott griffith i respectfully submit at age fifty four in his state of health and given the unique facts of this case that are outlined in the brief should not receive a twenty year sentence i i think that generally that's a true statement and just takes your right to say that art there's case law in support of that i think in this particular case to the extent that was an advisable it was a misstep that was invited by defendants argue defendants but considerable time attacking the legitimacy of two g two point two itself into the center district court felt compelled to give a more fulsome discussion of why those enhancements applied to this defendant i think that concern knock off this many points from this in this many points from this and trying to keep it to the inputs into this particular guidelines range this is what gets district judges in trouble on review because it does make it than any other guideline section and i submit that i judge terabyte reasonably in this case particularly with respect to i think your honour's if you don't have any further questions regarding defense procedural arguments i'd like to just briefly address substance  current child pornography offenses the defendant committed a litany of admittedly more minor criminal offenses and those offenses again were more minor but they were evidence of an inability to report his behavior with society's rules and