to the first is the feeling that mr hatch has after the sentencing that his son's wasn't based on him as a person it was based on the district court beliefs about general deterrence about so one procedural or more substantive there whichever way the court will look at it is not it hearing to that the supreme court's admonition that each case should be a unique study in individual and sentences should be particularized to the individual the district court here relied on ideas that would basically subject any defendant who had committed this crime to an above guideline satins he's from chicago and it involves a gun now it's clear from the district court's comments that he imposed the sentence in recognition of what he considered to be the seriousness of the offense but also to send a message general deterrence if i impose a fifty fifty percent above the guidelines range then others will be deterred we can we can make a dent into the problem of gun violence in chicago getting at the nature and circumstances of this offense when he talked about the geographical issues of looking at this offense in nature and circumstance the offense that certainly one of the thirty five fifty three eight factors he focused on the fact that your client brought seventy guns into the chicago area and part of the crime part of the nature and circumstances was the fact that it happened here and what happens to those  number of firearms and the fact that he brought them into chicago but that the guidelines account for the number that's correct but there's nothing that says a judge can't vary from the guidelines if she thinks that they don't sufficiently account of the particular case but it's not just the number of firearms it's also the trafficking so it's it's it's also bringing them in to the area well it's the trafficking but there's nothing in particular about the guideline that says trafficking in chicago and a judge can in the particular circumstances of the case decide that the guidelines are inadequate certainly within the judge's discretion but what the judge shouldn't do is apply a categorical because of this fact alone that wouldn't distinguish you from any other defendant or any other i'm going to impose an above guideline silence so there's no reason why somebody in chicago simply because of the fact they're in chicago should receive  court also noted that the defendant did not appear to be fully accepting responsibility that there was a need to promote respect for the law so in imposing a sentence he addressed all of the thirty five fifty three a factor a moment ago that he enhanced the sentence solely on the basis that the guns were trafficked in chicago and based on the reading of the transcript that's not what happened he looked at all of those factors including the fact that the defendant which significant when you're sentencing didn't appear to be accepting full responsibility right so i apologize if i if i had said soul what i mean to say is i think a fair reading of the transcript really points to two main problems the district court had one was that this the judge has either denied or in that case tonight acceptance of responsibility or in this case awarded acceptance of responsibility but more to the point even even the band gotten those points for acceptance of responsibility the guidelines range would still of the united states the defendant sentence here should be upheld because the district court even adequate explanation for it sentence that explanation was book consistent in explicitly rooted in the thirty points over the government's objection and over the probation department objection it stated that it nearly viewed those two points but it looked to the plea agreement the fact that he timely notify the government that he was going to plead guilty to the effe however i think showing a meaningful analysis here he came back to that in looking at thirty five three a factors so while the word of those points he came back to the defendant characteristics again at thirty five fifty three a factors and took great note that think there's probably myriad reasons for that and i don't know that i'm an expert position to opine on that i will say oh but it's constantly referred to that everybody goes to indiana because they are less restrictive gun laws then they bring it back to a state that's very restrictive  indiana did these deals in a parking lot  thing that does deter is the clearance rate and we had a great presentation at our seventh circuit conference this year about the clearance rate in chicago and it's very low and the certainty of being caught is a much greater deterrence then than any of the length of the science and and the other thing just can you mentioned the federal court is a big deterrent the thing is when you're out in the streets you don't know if you're going to be federal or state so the line don't want to be and you don't want to be in federal but most crimes are in the state and so that's one of the reasons in the literature why length of sentence doesn't deter because there's just no way to predict where you're going to end up or what the sentencing consequences are mr anderson you know