begins on page six and the page seven defense replied in a case that the defendant committed the fraud while on supervised release that is not the case able was while under supervision in  custody in supervision in a halfway house i don't think i think it affects the argument in that passage however i want to raise that issue because that mistake is not occur anywhere else in the briefing and it is central to the is clear in this in this respect that the district court judge must acknowledge and respond to any all of the chief arguments that are non privileged unsupported by the factual record the defendant dances at sentencing those that response has to be more than merely a cursory reference it actually has to provide enough for this court to be able to review the court's decision and determine whether or not that didn't happen here at the closest that the judge came in this case to addressing the mental health issues that the defendant laid out extensively both for sensing memorandum that spirit in the p s r that was discus and that was advanced by counsel that argument in the sense of hearing was the sense that it's posted many times in the brief that the judge found or did not believe the fault lies in the institutions defendant was able to receive treatment for her mental health issues she didn't commit any of the conduct that the record reflects and that though that treatment was very effective in preventing her from once so for example here as well the government argues that the terms of supervised release because he took into account the fact that she had mental health issues and asking about where she might be sent in the bureau of prisons he effectively did acknowledge and we could review that when we could actually speak more to whether or not it was reasonable we can't hear and i think part of the real issue here is that the greater the variance from the guidelines in this case twice the upper end of the guidelines and twice that that was recommend the census is recommended by the government the greater the variance from that the guidelines the greater the justification must be so that the court can actually determine why or whether or not the judge's sense was reasonable that didn't happen so that's are essentially are procedural substantive reasonable as there's not a lot to go on at least our position is is that there isn't a lot to go on in terms of how reasonable his assessment of defendants mental health issues was in the only place she's going to stay out of trouble is the one to sentence i guess you say he should have said or others that more than that no no i think that our position is that the judge to the extent that the judge address actually the record shows that the only time that she received treatment and the treatment is effective was when john supervised release both in the extent supervised release or pretrial release cases a treatment proved to be very effective and was under terms of supervised release but counsel the district judge did consider i mean he referenced to discuss the mental health treatment but he also described the defendant's conduct  absolutely frightening i mean she was a pretty significant recidivist i read it didn't just i guess what i'm saying is it almost sounds like your argument is that because she had received some mental health treatment that was effective like that that it was kind of surprising that the district quite didn't account for that and and lowering her sentence or even the sentencing was that because she received the treatment it was effective that she should receive all of this argument here is that the the judge didn't respond to that but he did buy ice by acknowledging her arguments about having a mental health conditions caused her to rationalize her decisions and seeking mental health treatment he just wasn't moved i dressed it recall in the record where he addressed that the her mental health is that her mental health issues caused her to rationalize was she said that yes but that was my understanding he was present when she made these arguments and he received them but i think part of the problem is that the only place he appears to have knowledge that is in that one sentence for he says the fault doesn't lie in institutions failure to provide mental health and that wasn't defendant's argument wasn't saying that he was less that she was less culpable because someone else didn't give her the care she is what he was saying was that in considering the sentence treatment and the effectiveness of should play a role in the judge's analysis we can't tell if it did here because he did focus on and i'm not saying shouldn't focused on result difficult for us to respond to the judge's reasoning to the extent that we do with the judge's reasons they appear to be reflective of the need to protect the public the need for deterrence and the need for move and the respect good afternoon and may it please the court the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an above guideline sentence of thirty six months upon this defendant as the district court noted this defendant is almost irrational in her in e upon committing fraud she was prosecuted in two thousand and twelve for a multimillion dollar fraud of which she was the mastermind she became a fugitive continue to commit fraud about she was on pretrial release note that this was after she was receiving mental health treatment as part of her two thousand and twelve pretrial release as noted in the p s r for that case she pled guilty was sentenced substantially below the guidelines in that case to seventy two months imprisonment and within a few weeks of being released from that prison term to a halfway house began committing fraud again it is in correct that the district court's treatment of her mental health arguments was simply cursory the defense attorney points to single paragraph in the district court's rationale where he specifically talks about mental health treatment however from the very beginning of the court's three thousand five hundred and fifty three a analysis the court is talking about the defendant's own reflection upon her mental health or her mental illness as causing her to rationalize her behalf and the district court at page twenty three dollars of the appendix says this is not just rationalization this is a persistent persistent conduct in committing fraud i don't have any hope of her rehabilitating herself contrary to what the defendant argued at sentencing that she needed treatment to rehabilitate herself he called the defendant's desire to lie and she absolutely frightening and that her commitment again to this fraud was uniquely aggravating and warranted in the guidelines the district court gave a proper proper consideration to his arguments founded on persuasive and it acted within its discretion in doing so if the court i think it's important to note that the report focused on the fact that this crime was committed while in cause the guidelines that's not unique the guidelines take that into consideration since a gun for d a one d specifically increases the criminal history category by two and that was done in this case if the crimes committed while in ca the court doesn't address why it needs to go beyond that guideline why that guideline in want to thank you and just to stand up for your arguments and mr frank i want to give you an additional thanks on the half of the court for except the appointment in this case is taken under