for our technical experts over here thank you so thank heavens it's right which was a construction company that received contracts pursuing two transactions with the former mayor of markham david webb this is focus is to verify that mr jarvis ran his pre sentence investigation report fail to verify that he reviewed it with his lawyer in fail to inquire if mr jarvis wish to challenge any facts in that reports where the parties diverged is the government so smith's that that is harmless you know or we don't concur this case on like just step back a moment please is because i may have misunderstood your argument is your argument that your client was denied the opportunity to review it or that the district court did not confirm that your client had reviewed the p s r or that the district court did not give your client the opportunity to make separate objections from what his attorney was make our argument is that the district court did not inquire whether he reviewed it and if he had he the defendant what influenced a challenge to a fact that we raised whether he was the vice president's or in the president's of castle so is your client denying that he had the opportunity to review the p s r he's denying that he reviewed it with his lawyer i didn't see that factually anywhere but correct and yes and i do you agree that you have forfeited this argument by not objecting to it before the district court and so plain error would apply no you honor because i'm trying to rack my mind as to when the defendant could raise it in the district court way we understand the purpose for the rule is kind of a judicial backstop in case the lawyer slips off and doesn't review it with his lawyer the lawyer would then be called upon to essentially throw him to the boss by saying judge we review it together that's not unusual for a lawyer to say we haven't had a chance to review it we need more time it but it didn't occur in this case and had the rule been on or maybe that one of the occurred that's why i think it falls on the judge and i'm getting this from the wrong decision i'm i'm not one of my own interpretation on the seven circuits court's decision ron would have clarified or corrected under this vice president but other than this vice president president distinction no not factually so why isn't whether we apply plain there are harmless error why wouldn't it be harmless given that both the government and the defense counsel at sentencing made clear that your client was the vice president not the president of castle but the judge did not rule one way or the other i mean what the judge did do was adopt the p s r in the statement of reasons so without an oral explanation all the acts in the record is the judge adoption of the yes arc which lists him as the president we don't know what a fact that factual distinction would have with the district court but we're not required to prove well for we're not required to prove a change in the senate seat we are required to prove that the questions weren't asked and that there was a factual error i'm citing the actual simp case for that which we discussed in our reply rates so our position is maybe the outcome of sentencing what change had we known that was clearly an aggravating factor that was driving the sentence the defendant remaining with castle on being active with castle at a time when its owner robert long was involved in criminal activity and our position is that a vice president unlike the president doesn't assume the alter ego of the company to the next issue st sentencing is this adoption of the p s r understatement of reasons not in open court we submit that that it's unclear whether it's mandatory that a judge always adopts the p s r in the absence of a dispute or discretionary of our point is given the judge actually did that the p s r because the judge adopted it out the oral pronouncement of the sentence governs but here when the defendant's not receiving his written judgment after the fact and the statement or reasons he's seen another bases that was not explained to him in open court it constitutes due process violation is our position as to that rd year that we raise regarding sentencing that the judge relied on the clearly erroneous fact of that the defendant called nancy employments a witness who judged deemed her jury yes we believe that was prejudicial because right after the judge made that comment he said it's not a pleasant thing for a judge to listen to a witness lied to the jury or to the courts he then went to he uses the word so so i cannot credit your position that he should basically receive a slap on the wrist and that word so i think is a transition word  shows that the defendants the judges believed that the defendant had called nancy was uppermost in his mind when he began to impose the sentence wasn't it a gorgeous point about nancy bloom not who called and had no objection to near the outset of that sensing the defendant sensing hearing district court judge discuss the p s r in the guidelines contained within that p s our defense counsel said  that the defendant knew the defendant knew that he could get a benefit under the guidelines for accepting responsibility he made the decision not to defense counsel later in the sensing hearing makes multiple objections to conditions of probation and tane within the p s r he does not object to a single fact in tain within the p s r but to multiple probation conditions did have an opportunity to record did talk to his attorney about it and disputed the issues and any disputed issues were addressed in a key factors there were no disputed issues raised during the course the sense here now a single one the only issue the defense that the defendant raises this point is this issue about word choice is far is the defendant's relationship with castle and really it is a word choice what the judge was  making clear at sensing is the defendant was a long time trusted employee of both castle and tower and there can't be disputed this is the defendant that signed three twenty one million dollars on behalf of these three companies i think the record is perfectly clear that he was a very trusted employee and the judges point was made the fact that he chose a vice president president or officer is  issue in the district in the district court it was not raised that is to court yes you're on the defense counsel and i should also note your honor the defendant himself and defense counsel were given an opportunity during the course of the sensing hearing to address directly the district court defendant to say nothing at all defense counsel didn't correct anything beyond what he had already said during the course a sense here if there was ample opportunity to raise that issue what about mr shep requires the district court to resolve disputes that are raised during the course the sensing hearing and adopting the p s are can be a means to resolve those disputes again at the sensing hearing there was not a single factual dispute between this defendant the government the district and then the judge did exactly what this court asked him to do which is then analyze the three thousand five hundred and fifty three factors in determining just sentence which is what the court did hear now is the rd issue district lied during her direct examination and it's important to understand that the defendant relied on testimony in closing argument the fed and it argue that the payments the payments that were made from the defendant to were somehow illegitimate nancy was the only witness to introduce any evidence that would support  that that that that shell company had actually done legitimate work when the judge said the company didn't even exist you know there was it was a fiction judge were to focus on this factor and did consider this factor with respect to the sensing any error was an error but even if it was it was harmless because a district court judge relied more of course we are talking about closing argument what was argued is could have been based on inferences the just the substantive reasonableness as to the substance one issue because the government in its sentencing memorandum of thomas summer the other contractor who was indicted in this case but then severed both before trial they argued in their sentencing memorandum that under three hundred and fifty five thousand three hundred and eighty six summers even though he was a quid of conspiracy quote both defendants advance contacts your numerous material similarities including the underlined nature of the conduct itself its appearance and its impact on the market community and summers received a one year sentence just briefly as to the i didn't make that argument to the district court though to you i know you've made it here but you didn't make a three thousand five hundred and fifty three a six disparity argument below i did not i was not the lawyer at sentencing but it was not made summers and lechi who had nothing to do with michael jarvis additionally let's he was deceased before the trial so it's not michael jackson course cannot have called him summers wasn't found in his own case so it's not as though jarvis could have even called summers or electic to replot the evidence that the government introduced and i just want to add that point of clarification to our brief and what  considering the defendant's age and his health and i will note that it's in the record the case has been extended his surrender date based on the fact that yet coleman if so if there is a rematch and this isn't going to be for prospering one thing in rebuttal as to the government's point about all the lawyer clearly read the p s r that's not our point of this card as l l that's not enough and no point was there any indication