criminal history score to determine what factors were driving their criminal history score and it was it was documented in the pre sentence report and in the sentencing memorandum that shockey had a severe and chronic alcoholism problem and so so one of the fundamental question is if you're if you were trying to use a criminal history as a predictor of recidivism and the driving force behind the prior crimes was alcoholism and if it it seems to me that you know well that makes him very dangerous you know oh come on of course the question is still whether  is whether he shockey stated it when he drinks he becomes violent yes yes in other words he is saying that his alcoholism contributes to his criminal activity that's correct oh it's all right we agree it's on what you're talking about we're talking about the weather the alcoholism is is going to continue or into enter into recovery as mr stevens i understand to do to have been making a procedural argument right but it seemed pretty clear to me the judge miller did address the issue of alcoholism and just disagreed saying and you know since i understand there might be a potential for recovery but i've got to decide i'm going to look at the defendant today and i see a long history with no particular reasons to be optimistic so i'm going to protect the public by imposing a longer sentence here and i don't see a procedural misstep there even the reasonable people can differ about the conclusion except that he did not really evaluate  the the they entry into recovery had shockey reached a bottom was he truly prepared for entry into entry into recovery and it's but hard how did he ever said that before not that i know i don't think there's any record of it that thought those were occasions when he sought and received substance abuse treatment good morning your honors may please the court my name is nathaniel whalen and i'm here in the after united states your honour's the district court did consider whether there was evidence that mr shockey was currently clean and what the district court said in its sensing transcript on page thirteen there's really nothing i can point that tangibly to say that this one's going to be different meaning this sentence this conviction that this will affect your drinking more than the previous ones the court acknowledged defense counsel's argument that a lot of his criminal history probably did have to do with alcohol but the court also said it also has to do with anger the combination of anger and alcohol and more to the point as it relates to this particular crime the court said there was no evidence whatsoever that drinking played a role in  it mr shockey was a felon who could not legally own a gun what he had in his possession was a stolen firearm that he sold out of his house which he called basically a little pond shop well on supervised release and the court said there's no evidence that alcohol played a role in this one unlike the others so at the time of sensing the district court did not have anything in front of it to say mr shockey was clean or that mr shockey this want this conviction was any different than his previous twenty eight  admittedly the district court said a lot of them did have something to do with alcohol those previous twenty eight convictions but it also said again that mr mr shockey was likely to aid and as we noted in our briefs the sensing guidelines say that alcohol dependency isn't a reason for a downward departure it those are not mandatory there is no such thing as a downward variance anymore we knowledge that but the court can still look at se question is whether schottky at that point was prepared to confront his alcoholism and other into recovery