limited essentially to the supervised release conditions issue there was the withdrawal of attorney issue that everyone sort of like little because it was going to be dealt with on that during the sentencing hearing the court under thompson in this court's cases and isn't it harmless it is not harmless for a couple of reasons first the the government suggests that it's harmless because the district court made this alternative finding that if it has the authority it wouldn't exercise it but i'd ask the courts and look carefully at page four of the sentencing transcript which is where that finding is made the government says to the court if the court had authority we don't think you should exercise it in the quote even if the court had the authority you wouldn't consider issues that were already addressed at the first sentencing and really addressed them today and the court said no i would not but there were additional issues that the defendant had raised in his sentencing memorandum that had not been addressed at that first sentencing and this court in mobley had and this court in lewis has said i mean this is essentially a complete do over including new issues if the court chooses to do so and i recognize the court has that discretion but it seems here that that finding was pretty carefully by the government and then the was that there it was conduct that had been considered relevant conduct that was not he agreed all that at the first sentencing there was no challenge i i don't dispute there was no challenge to the relevant conduct at the for me thing is practically realistically why in the heck should we send this case back for ten or more seven more years they'll receive you should send this case back because in two respects it's not proceed to leak it you want us to really censor question judge i'm sorry if i were sitting as a trial judge but i really consider what you argued as a reason to change a ten year sentence with no scribes released would you consider changing the ten year sentence i don't know i don't know well of course you don't know you're not the sense of good i am right but what i do know judge is that there were there's two problems or the other problem and i think it's important is the defendant here had a right to allocution and he did get to speak there's no doubt because he was pro se but but please at least take note that by the bottom of page four of the sentencing transcript before the defendant has said anything other then i should get a chance to you don't get allocution if you're arguing your own case no i'm saying that you the sentence was imposed before he got to speak at page four of the sentencing transcript the district court says i'm giving you ten years ago and the only thing we're here to talk about is supervised release and in fact when he was invited to speak he was invited to speak only about the issues that as the court said it had authority to address and it was mistaken there's no question here the government every hour to change the law well that's obviously your that is within your purview there's no doubt but under mobley and under louis i would suggest that because the sentencing whether it was harmful on this record in other words whether there was any prejudice to him whether there's the remotest possibility that judge young is going to change his mind that well again i will say when the defendant challenge the relevant conduct the government came to the sentencing saying we were prepared to present evidence here today and that never happened so given the objection given that the defendant has made the argument that while it may have been sort of sharp elbow dealings and that sort of things that part of the conduct is not criminal or is not at the very least not relevant conduct to the count of conviction the judge has needed clear that an argument like that would be perceived as backpedaling on his acceptance of responsibility so that's not going to help him to have this issue aired in a more please way that i mean that  here either you know harmlessly or review or possibly plane air review but there has to be some substantial presence precious right and i just don't see how the result would have been different had he been allowed to make all  record i'm looking for prejudice which we need to find in order to find reversible error well even if this court were to find that on the relevant conduct issue that the the court would not have done anything differently or maybe if it's not relevant conduct the court was likely to have still imposed a ten year sentence and i think i still would ask the court to really carefully take a look at the elocutionary because although i and i understand judge caning i do understand what you're saying with respect to and judge sykes the lack of change or the likelihood that the sentence wouldn't change there still is i think an error that undermines really the fairness of the judicial process here that that this defendant while representing himself essentially receives the of possession of his sentence before he was allowed to speak at all and then when invited to speak was essentially told what he gets tougher he gets to talk about the supervised release error or supervised release issue and i think the government invited him to talk about rehabilitative efforts because when you're on the streets and bomb on behalf of the united states i think when we talk about his allocution to judge young it's important to keep the entire context of this criminal proceeding in mind judge young was very familiar with mr connor by the time of this recent sting and he had presided over a case that the prosecutor changed in it and the defense lawyer changed but judge young was there the entire time he knew mr comey were it really pains me to think of this case going back let me just say that but we would have to totally override united states versus  and lewis we would just have to change our of the law or circuit the man did not have any can't consider your art it's because i'm not authorize to reopen those matter we have no idea whether the district george judge considered  our otherwise we just have to change the law in the circuit i don't believe you do judge over the lewis case provides that even when the judge misunderstands which is what happened in lewis but says if i had the louis also says you're out of the new arguments that the defendant wants to raise have to be potentially meritorious there is nothing potentially meritorious about the arguments three arguments mr connor wanted to raise were the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction that the indictment or the information he pled guilty did not state a crime and that his victims weren't really victims after all but they were beneficiaries none of those new arguments were potentially m and the defendants briefs on this appeal do not even suggest that there meritorious there is no there is a family where in this nation god only knows be a judge who you know might have thought that one of those was we elocution this court's also said we look at the entirety of what happened and yes the district court said at the very beginning i think ten years is the right sentence i got it right the first time but then he does say before the technical imposition of sentence mr connor's or anything else you want to say to the court he opened it up to him and mr connor did get to talk about what he did in prison and why he thought a lesser sentence was appropriate the judge knew the sentence mr connor wanted he said he wanted a certificate of innocence and to be released immediately so i think in the substance of what happened he did have a meaningful opportunity to address the court and ask for what he wanted so we don't think there's any reason thompson said we remain and it's potential that if we arguments or get rid of some supervised release condition that might change the prison term i don't i can't envision a scenario where the judge says ok i'm not going to give you supervised release at all  likelihood of any change here and the emptiness of every man in this situation that seems pretty clear but the case is what it is you know mr baum you never knew judge believed that it was torture for defendants to stand before him and have to listen to all the horrible things about them and wait for the sentence so he just sided just start giving the set list first and then telling them that they weren't nice people and let me tell you that case law is perhaps as well it's torture it's frankly for the victims of mr connor to have to go through this again so i don't think i think the law is able to craft a remedy that doesn't remember that the district court did make the findings that were then disputed as to whether or not it was harmless it was the only question was this breach of the plea or cream in question and the district court had answered it so it was very easy for this court to to deal with the harmless error because if he really had the issues had been dealt with in lewis and they weren't here for that reason and because of the allocation error i would ask that the case be remanded thank you thank you thanks to both counsel