use united states against justin hancock amounted to a invitation to fight for the defendant to raise all kinds of issues and say judge you haven't adequately adequately done this you haven't adequately done that i argue in the courts to inquire of the defendant whether they are satisfied that the court had addressed the main arguments in mitigation i felt that in action in much in contrast to how judge kendall and all that shortly after for girl specifically addressed me he said mr sullivan are there any arguments in mitigation that i have not adequately addressed it was clear what he was asking and it was clear that by my answer if i said yes which i did or well there were no anything else that is so open ended that we have cases that suggest that does not follow the spirit of what garcia sykora was trying to achieve and then there are cases like the one  described where the judge really thought was the word for word are there any arguments in mitigation that i should be talking about that i haven't talked about yet or anything like that in this case somewhere in between it's just seem like judge kendall is trying to open up a discussion if she asks about supervised release she doesn't ask about the actual sentence i think that's the problem and that's true because actually turns out there was a problem with the supervised release which nobody realized at the at the moment because when chief side the judge made a commitment order it did not be adequately reflect what was stated at the time of the satsang so we have to go back what later and redo the judgment a commitment or were to agree with you and actually i am inclined to agree with you on this waiver point what good is does that feel she does spend a fair amount of time considering the appropriate sentence for you and i think in light of the criticism that the sentencing commission has leveled against these specific offense characteristics and to point to the judge should provide better information as to  sadomasochistic images are particularly horrific and she quotes from letters and everything else misfire that at the end the fantasy commission suggests but that analysis is flawed because it really doesn't go to the heart of the offen and the offender conduct in terms of my fandom my client he there was no indication as to the number of such images that he had he had actually provided district court some information that those images were not of particular interest to him that his fantasy involved another particular area of an age group that was significantly older but judge kendall focused that he should be more severely satins because for all we know there were one or two images out of sixteen thousand which the sentencing commission through its analysis has indicated you almost anybody can download if you download some guy's folder that's got five thousand images and it and you're looking for a particular interest you're probably going to get one or two of these horrific images of very young children and i think the judge kendall should have more guidelines are very questionable goes along with the fact that they should not be presumed reasonable because that significant has specifically said go out there to the gist of judges we here are some suggested potential new offender characteristics that we are considering and apply thirty five fifty three principles which are also the foundation for the guidelines and then come back render your decision to tell us your analysis of the appeals courts will decide and review that and overall that information all be turned over to the sentencing commission who then can decide maybe a way to that it does not differentiate you know i mean we have sentencing guidelines these specific offense characteristics i believe are close to twenty years old and the time when the world was much different and most of the child pornography was not distributed by computer but judge i think judge kendall it was a lot of information fun of or a lot of what she could have done with that but she pretty much down the line just said well this is what the guy did i thought she didn't say it that way each i think of the thirty five fifty three percent ok thank you very much good morning me please the court the district of not area at sentencing mr hancock in fact it's not clear at all what the district court should have done differently district court properly computed the guidelines there's no dispute about that the district court entertained considered the arguments made by mr hancock at sentencing those arguments were criticisms of the guidelines as a policy matter namely that they result in an overly harsh sentences they were outmoded they didn't they weren't a good reflection of that and finn is behavior and case but the fact is that the court did consider each of those arguments and it other than agreeing with the defendant about his arguments it's not clear what the district court should have done in addition to what it already did it for example on the the volume images the district court said well that's an argument that's possible as a mitigating argument but it wasn't clear from the evidence in the case that in fact that's what had happened here that mr hancock had received the sixteen thousand images of child pornography all in one lump or two lumps or something like that this report was willing to entertain that as an argument mitigation with didn't think it was backed up by the facts the district court recognized that court didn't consider to be mitigating found facts found that to be quite aggravating that the defendant was willing to possess and collect really horrific images just she was not required to had to do with looking at whether instead of focusing on the factors that the guidelines set forth defendant argued that instead the district court should focus on whether the defendant had a catalogue his collection had cultivated his collection of images which would show more his more whether he had an extensive involvement which our pornography the nature of his interests and so on and the district court to consider that argument and explicitly found it was mitigating that was a circumstance in which the court agreed with the difference so in all of these criticisms of the guidelines as a sort of a policy matter the district court adequately considered them adequately explained its reasons for rejecting those arguments and at least that one circumstance found it was in fact mitigating circumstances what's beyond that not clear at all what the court should have the government very correctly indicates that while there were questions about how the defendant got these sixteen thousand plus images over what period of fantasies the question yes and why you know they complain that we did not provide it sounds like they're complaining that we did not provide information as to how these things happened the judge didn't believe ho in the indictment or in that information charge acct the only place i can ever go c p m which is over at the f b i offices and i do not know they do not tell me which ones they believe are these horrific images they do not tell me from the data on