guidelines calculation in the pre sentence report and reading through this nobody seems to mention that actually just doesn't the judge generally didn't have low i'm looking at page thirty six dollars of the transcript judge normal says you knew gang members were to come in the house and pick up the guns the defendant yes sir the court is that what you were telling me now the defendant yes sir the court why did you say before the defendant i'm sorry for that would that be that resolution of the court confronting the defendant with his previous statement of family members and friends he certainly confronted with defense counsel said within the guidelines range would be appropriate but at the lower end of twenty four dollars i don't know how to read that other than that he thinks the lower end is twenty that this is a twenty four dollars to thirty dollars and he's going above forty going to respectfully thirty reflect the adjustment for acceptance of responsibility at least at the p s r level it did ok correct but because i don't know we don't it's unclear from the transcript whether the judge four to thirty months or the judge said i'm i'm going to adopt the sentencing guideline range that appears in the p s r you know anything coming out of the judge's mouth affirmatively blessing sentence twenty four months on the low end and thirty months on the high now you mention that as well on page appears to be page nine of the transcript page fifty seven of ninety four in the brief he said that's why the nature requires sentence above the advisory guidelines range of twenty four to thirty months so that's one place where it said out loud but not by the judge you see we get it's this problem when the judge doesn't take off the boxes when the judge doesn't say here's my sentence i'm starting from an advisory guideline range of eight a b and i have considered the three thousand five hundred and fifty three a factors we wind up with this you know need to reconstruct what was going on inside the judge head and with this ambiguity that acceptance of responsibility judge is very cross with the defendants allocution judge feels that it's not at all remorseful indeed may be misleading to just record certainly took issue with the defend its acceptance of elocution but at no point did it just your court ever state that he was withdrawing credit for acceptance of responsibility and if you review the entire sense in hearing as a whole at the beginning in the middle and the end of the hearing the district court noted that the defendant was receiving credit for acceptance at the outset  which accounted for acceptance during the hearing the district court certainly did take issue with the defense elocution but the district court is allowed to take issue with its and its elocution and still grant acceptance and the primary issue that the district court had here was ultimately resolved that issue was whether or not the defendant was going to acknowledge who he was obtaining his guns for what their role in society was which is that they were gang members or just other people and his ultimate acknowledgment the defendants that he knew that they were going to be using these guns for illegal acts judge brown in reference to this is questioning that was which was that on page thirty six the district court actually did say why didn't you tell me that earlier pavel were both present the sentencing and i'm focusing on page twenty nine to thirty two of the transcript the court says on line six a ph twenty nine the defendant has been given credit for responsibility acceptance of responsibility but this statement ignores totally the government's argument then later on about three pages later i'm not sure whether you piped up or whether the court just recognised you but on page thirty two line seven judge nor the last case what do you have to say with respect to what the defendant has said to the court by way of allocution you say i wish i wish it provided more information than the judge makes a statement and then you say i think he said it's right except his responsibility under the law that's it you say there wasn't much of a statement but he's not required to make a mistake in the courts as that's correct being there is the idea here that you are think and then after that exchange the defendant eventually spoke and he acknowledged for the st time at sentencing hearing that he was obtaining these guns and making them available and distributing them to not only family and friends but your gang members and also that he knew that they would use them for illegal acts and that's when at the bottom of page thirty five the district court says why didn't you tell me that you so there i think is the resolution is to this issue of acceptance with hearing and then just a ticket one point further after the hearing did just record statement of reasons noted that it adopted the p s r which also credited to defendant with acceptance and that it applied the guidelines range to be fair though mr durcan it was it was pretty thin rule right on the statement of reasons page to state the basis for the departure of thirty five to three factors as presented by the government right that's  e there was also an extended discussion where the court addressed its concerns and thoughts about the sentence and exchanges with the defendant the defense attorney and the government's attorney it's clear from those exchanges that the court considered the nature and circumstances of the  was focused on the fact that the defendant not only a team has firearms illegally but that he made illegal to gang members and that he knew that those gang members would use them for him to go which is what they did the district court also considered the history and characteristics of the defense it noted the defense personal history with kind of when addressing the collateral consequences of his current and it noted that he considered the various letters that the defendant submitted to in court to the court knows letters included letters from his mother in terms friends and finally just court emphasized the need for general deterrence particularly for a defendant who illegally chains firearms and then makes them vailable for use by gang members and it's that factor that makes this above god and sentence reasonable well maybe the best fact for you is the judge does say he emphasizes general deterrence almost to the exclusion of everything else i think we have to be honest about that he makes statements saying i'm really not doing this for specific deterrence i don't think you're going to go do this again but he emphasizes the general deterrence but it seems that in his mind the question is why should not go all the way up to the statutory maximum and he says but i have these other three thousand five hundred and fifty three a factors and he mentioned some of the positive things you just alluded to that's correct your honor finally connected that condition to the defendant's personal history and the nature of his appearance and mr going to how did that happen because as i understand it the defendant is calling the individual new mexico getting a feel for what the price range is and the types of the guns he's not using a computer to send e mails or somehow communicate with that individual no he's not it in this case your honor the district courts the rea justification for imposing this condition was the fact that the defendant was distributing handguns from the residence that he lived in so it wasn't just a case where he was illegally receiving guns he was storing them in his residence making them available to others who came in and out of that residence and so the district court specifically tie that conditions to the defendant's offense if there are no further question so that this is the location of the computer in the residence is that the  was concerned with a computer i think it was offering the ability of a probation officer to search to defend its residents upon probable cause that he's violating the condition if you know my time is up or the government respectfully the problem is general deterrence is not sufficient to go eighteen months over the high end and if the where does it and where does it say that though i mean i realize that's what you're arguing but i'm not sure where you're getting that from that is if the if the court considered the guy as a twenty four to thirty six knots and ended up going eighteen months at the high end over the high and it needed more than general deterrence to give that particular area or to say why someone in criminal history category one was in need of