your honor eighteen u s c thirty five fifty three a instructs the courts to impose a sentence that is sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with the sentencing purposes of the statute just punishment deterrence and things of that nature in this particular case at sentencing the district court judge sentenced mr gomes to an aggregate total of six hundred fifty two months of little over fifty four years  in doing so the district court also explicitly stated that it felt that the guideline talk elation in the case was excessive having said that the court went on to say that it felt that it was court required to do so by statute now the reason that the senate's got so high in the six hundred fifty two month range was because there was four counts that were drug related counts down and the guideline range for that came to two hundred ninety two to three hundred sixty five months the district court first calculated the guideline arrange for those counts in imposed a since a two hundred in one thousand months there were also two one twenty four c counts the first conviction on that count required in consecutive sense of five years in the second conviction for the one twenty four c required consecutive sentence of thirty years or twenty five years for a total of thirty years three hundred sixty months so the ten years running there was two drug counts that carried him into a minimum of ten years now before you go on so if again basic math before the district judge employs any discretion whatsoever he's got forty years that he must impose is that correct as a matter of statute as a matter of statute that's correct on the minimum that the court could impose everything together would have been four hundred eighty months forty years now eleven fifty eight basically after he goes through the guideline calculation he states that i'm a cardinal law to since the defendant to sixty months consecutive i count three three hundred months consecutive on count five for a total term of imprisonment of six hundred fifty two months i find that the circumstances that under the circumstances that the guideline calculation is excessive and then he goes on to zim posts advice releases and restitution he never explains his sentence never exceed not required to explain if the p s r explains the calculation you're on it and he adopts the p s r does this is true in regards to the thirty five fifty three factors the an explanation of the things that the court took into consideration i think that it's important that if the court states that it believes that the sentence that it has to impose is excessive but there is the opportunity for the court to impose a lesser sentence than the question becomes why would the court not do that for instance the court under an attorney left the defense attorney left it in the record seidlin fifty seven at the very end of the argument he said so notwithstanding what the court just stead and what's said about the statutory duty as far as the thirty years again i would just ask at this juncture to keep it at thirty which i would argue put the court on notice that the defense attorney was really seeking the least amount of time possible and that a sentence greater than that was excessive now understandably the defense attorney in this believes it's excessive then it would be an reasonable to impose such a sentence and then that leads to the question did the court believe it had their story to adjust the guideline calculations for the drug accounts and considering the aggregate senates that would be imposed based on the nine twenty four c counts that would have to run consecutive in essence my argument would be is that the district court judge and dumb as this case found himself in the same situation that the discord judge found himself in in the dean case now there's no there's no dean didn't create in law it clarifying the law that said basically you that the district court judge can take into account the predicate often says when imposing a sentence when you have these nine twenty four seats you're saying you should have just gone with the forty years which is not a trifling amount of time he should have just gone for the you the way that you do this and you know nine twenty four c count is you look at what the guideline calculation is for the drug counts you arrive at that how collation and then whatever that is you have to consecutively stack in one twenty four  or taking that into consideration when imposing sentence when you have these ninety four seats that are consecutive to do what we're what on what on proposing here that the court should have done in could have done it stands to reason i think the common sense that if the clerk felt that the six hundred fifty two months was excessive and there was a written remedy for the court to lower that sentence and the court believed that it could and that the court would have granted again that the lowest of the court could have gone it's four hundred eighty months i suppose we suppose we were greedy agree with you know i'm not at all confident that the judges have been on the bench for fifteen years or more doesn't know what sentencing and tails but it's suppose we were to vacate in remand what will we tell the district court to do i think we would tell a different court that she in light of the dean case to explain its sentence two reasons and see if the court would have imposed the same sente perhaps if the court realized that it had the ability to not to modify the underlying predicate often says and the judge counts to give the op the court the option to do that suppose he said  in other words we would tell him to follow thirty five fifty three correct but don't you think he knew he had follow thirty five fifty three and younger i would think that that would be true but the problem is the problem is when that this sentence is excessive on the record well a lot of us think sentences you know not all sentences but the guidelines result in some very high sentences but the fact that we may even say from the bench of their excessive doesn't mean that we don't think that's what the guidelines are getting at say that the sentence is excessive or that the guideline calculation is excessive the quote that i'm looking at is that that guideline calculation is excessive but i believe that's what i'm required by the statute to do that is there's the actor quote that is the guy like calculation that the court believes is excessive in this case and presumably if he thinks that the guideline calculation is excessive then erring on the additional two statutory mandatory minimums makes it even more excessive is that your argument that would be my argument your honor and again i  that is again when he says that it's excessive and there's a remedy for the court to  a guideline that is significantly less than the six hundred fifty two months of the court believed it had to impose in this case when he says i'm required to do by the statute doesn't that what statute do you believe he's talking about with regard to guideline calculations assuming that he did not misspeak what statute is he talking about with regard to the guideline calculation certainly he's aware of the supreme three factors considered them and understands that the guideline range is advisory however i'm not sure which statute it seems like the only other alternative could be this the nine twenty four it's stacking the minute minimums with the stacking is is the statute he's referring to i mean it's got to be he's got to be referring to some statute that's involved in creating this sentence and if the if the guideline calculations are not mandatory and i haven't been for some years now the statute he's got to refer to is one that is mandatory he says required and so it's got to be the one twenty four requirement wouldn't you think you know that is a a logical deduction from the if we sent the case back to the district court judge then we could get clarification on what he meant and if he would have explained on the believed was excessive in this regard but in light of this case and with that in light of the fact that we don't have a lot of information in how the court was thinking in i posing its sentence given the fact that he imposed a six hundred fifty two months in this and mr gomez has the opportunity i guess you could say under our scheme to where the minimum that he could receive was four hundred eighteen months then i would argue to the court that he should get the benefit of having the district courts to sink lee and clearly explained what the senate should be in his case that is a lot of time i think we have your argument thank you judge you have time for a bottle mr gomes overall since with respect to this argument i think it's important start with the standard of review because mr gomes wrongly assumes that the abuse of discretion standard should apply but that standard would apply only had mr gomes properly preserved his objections that he makes now out of this court for the first time before the district court this court said in montreux gone santiago that in order for player of you not to apply the defendant must make an argument in such a way that the district court has an opportunity to correct the error he now presses on appeal mr gomes did not argue that the district court procedurally or substantively failed in reaching a decision on his sentence it didn't indicate that the district court failed to explain the sentence or considered thirty five fifty three a factors nor did he raise dean or anything having to do with the district court's purported treatment of the sentencing guidelines as being mandatory in fact after the district court announced it since mr gomes didn't object on any ground whatsoever so having failed to raise those objections to this court's highly deferential plain error standard of overview should apply turning to mr gomez's first contention about the district court's purported failure to explain a sentence or consider the thirty five fifty three a factors i think it's important to note that in addition to the deferential plainer standard of  say that he believes the sentence to be excessive or the guideline calculation to be excessive so it's not like we don't have any we don't have a mechanical application of guidelines and statutory minimum is we do have some insight that into the district judge is thinking that it's excessive do you believe that the district judge simply misspoke when he said calculations as opposed to the statutory minimum so i don't know what basis would you make that assumption at a tangent question simply i do believe that he misspoke but i think that that argument is best made or considered in the context in which that statement was made leading up to the trial even before he was convicted mr gomes had complained about the effect of these mandatory minimum one twenty four  charges that's it page two fifty four in the record mr gomez argued that multiple nine hundred four c charges constitute cruel and unusual punishment having been convicted of those charges and also the predicate drug often says in his objections the pre sentence report m again was laser focused on those ninety four c charges asking a district court judge to flout his constitutional duty and impose something to the tune of five or ten years rather than the thirty years required and i think importantly at no point to request a downward variance or seek a certain sentence with respect to the drug counts again almost all energy focusing on the gun counts and then again it sentencing hearing he refers back to that same pretrial document he argues again that the district court judge should not consider or should not stack those sentences and should  impose a lower sentence is required a media at lee after immediately before rather when the district court judges calculating the sentence and in the case on counts three and five he needs to impose three hundred sixty months for those gun charges that's the line that immediately preceded his statement that the guideline calculation was excessive so given that context i think the better view is that the district court judgment was referring back to the firing charges and i think that he was bolstered strongly by the fact that in the written statement of reasons and i know my friend indicated that they were boilerplate but i don't think this highly experienced judge does anything in a boilerplate fashion because in the statement of reasons which is shoot the day after the sentencing hearing the district court judge referred back to the sentencing hearing and indicated for the reasons stated in the sentencing hearing he had chosen chosen a specific sentence that was sufficient but not greater than necessary on those two drug counts so i think the best reading of the judge's comment is that he was giving his opinion that the sentence associated with the multiple mandatory minimum firearm counts was excessive it and again given that the i believe that the player standard of review applies i think at most what we have here is an ambiguity and i think when there's an ambiguity in the record versus an obvious that is clearer he can't meet the second prong of the playing or standard view and can't support reversal on that basis but want to judge didn't consider was was imposing an aggregate sim's that's which which dange saves is is appropriate the judge might consider the at it and probably should consider imposing an aggregate so much when when he's in this situation well i think i may disagree a little bit on that your honor i think as judge jones alluded to earlier i think it's highly likely that this district court judges very experienced had an understanding of the dean case given that it was released about two and a half months before mr go in as a sentencing hearing and further as i think the court alluded to earlier dean didn't change the law in the circuit i step with respect to mr gomez arguments about the district court's purported failure to explain the sentence or consider the thirty by the three a factors given that the district court judge imposed within guidelines and that gives rise to an inference that had considered all the thirty five fifty