my name is arthur we and i'm the attorney for the appellant he's been released from custody and he's here today i think i'll be brief and not take up my whole time so i don't think that's there were two arguments that i raised in my brief that are both sentencing issues the first was groups of closely related killings and the other was the obstruction justice intensity and what i would be inclined to do if the court which is is to address them in that order another is to start off with the groups of closely related counts of if that's what you would like ok  as you recall from escapees this was a situation involving citizens from bangladesh my client is from bangladesh and the other people who were involved with this w also print bangladeshi they were part of the community of people from bangladesh that live in los angeles and what happened was one of them testified against another one in a federal case that of course has nothing to do with this case but what my client did after the conviction of the first case is one tree separate this is not good but this is what he did in the course it's a federal crime he did this on three different occasions involving time periods of seven months and then he was arrested he was tried separately for the crime of obstruction of justice will section three the one point two of the sentencing guidelines s that there's an enhanced an eight level in huntsman if there is an obstruction of justice where there is he either threats or actual harm and in that sense it differs from the crime itself because the crime itself requires actual harm if to however it will not be impos if two or more acts are transactions connected by a common criminal objective or the three acts that i've talked about here constitute part of a in in different places at different times other different people present and claim that all but all those are part of a common scheme or plan short they're similar acts but why why does that why does that make them part of a what does that make them closely related that we have to group them want to be error for the court to prove something that i heard last month that occurs in february and the last one occurs in september well granted they're separated by a greater length of time than is usual but i suggest the thing that matters here is that they were all part and parcel of the same object another words my client was trying to rob this person one time and then beat him up because they had a bet on a football game the second time or something like that they the same common scheme or plan i don't think you can so i did the same thing but the same that would also be true in my burger example i would suggest not and the reason is that in this case they were all motivated by the same and that is to intimidate this witness because he had given testimony against a bangladeshi not of burglary if there were three different burglaries that would be different you could say alright the person wanted to enrich  there were twenty threats i think there were phone calls to the to the united states attorney and the eleventh circuit i believe it was was am i right about  separate and distinct instances of fear and psychological harm with each separate threatening communication well your client did not as i understand it do the same thing on each promise common spelling and that's one fifty five federal third age thirty three that wasn't in your brief you know it wasn't it wasn't and i apologize for that it should have been but i suppose better late th harassing communication to the same victim are grouped together under three d one point two and what was what was the data that amendment the date of the amendment was ninety seven which i think if i recall correctly is one year after bonnie and the date of us versus thomas the seventh circuit case is nine hundred ninety eight and does the amendment address the situation where the threats are made months apart thing it was argued that mr ahmed sentencing that the case was already completed and so therefore there wasn't a very well reasoned approach to this issue and in that case the first circuit held that the conduct which forms the basis for the enhancemen in response to conduct capable of repetition i don't mean you know threatening the thought of what i mean is what the threat is of dark in other words he's saying ok you testified against a fellow bangladeshi i'm going to get you  both instances in the instant appeal where the defendant is challenging the application of the guidelines both the application notes as well as the relevant case law that's out there clearly support the application of those guidelines to the defendant's sentence and  as well as actual assaults by the defendant on the victim and the third count and months later involved only threats of bodily harm at any rate they were each one as the victim testified at trial and as the evidence in the record sets forth supports the victim felt separate fear separate suffered separate injuries with ricin with respect to the first two counts and they're clearly separate instances of fearing risk of harm the case law out there supports the application  grouping in those instances as noted in the government's brief in banner and miller the eleventh and second circuit cases and cases that the defendant relies upon to suggest otherwise wilson and norman are clearly distinguishable in that given that it appears to be the clear meaning of that guideline that these accounts should not be grouped tell just plain speculation you're giving what counsel said in today's world of the guidelines what relevance would an amendment to a guideline have in this case at all one point to be one that is clearly a political in the instance instant case in that the defendant's offense involved causing as well as threatening to cause physical injury in order to obstruct justice the defense notion that district court found the case in fact was still pending on appeal whether or not the defendant knew that at the time is really neither here nor there in that it was such a relying on that notion allows for a defendant at every turn to just simply argue against the application of this guideline if he doesn't know if the witnesses testified or if the witness has completed his testimony during the prosecution t j one point two is the sole guideline for of conviction the eighteen u s c fifteen thirteen offense and so makes no sense that it would be the sole relevant guideline for fifteen thirteen retaliatory conduct and then be rendered completely and applicable to commentary that showing that the guidelines that guideline is clearly intended to apply to retaliation even against somebody who has completely completed their testimony it appears that the function of that i'd line is really particular questions about the application of that guideline with cement thank you very much was there anything that that their attention needs to be called to your your you pretty much use your time but if there's something that there are the demands for question then we'll give you an additional thirty second clerk with a with a full