the court knows a seven year mandatory sentence consecutive to the counts of wonder for sentence judge carol the original judge was in a semi retirement status judge logan went to are any of facts relevant to sounds that are different that would justify the increase or is this just we have a different judge who has a different view of the matter there are there's no well i shouldn't say no i don't believe from the record night and in my briefs i argue that the record is not reveal any new evidence accords itself judge logan indicated that he remained unchanged and the only new evidence or potentially new evidence was that mr bell has lopez some ten years earlier just when he essentially just started his incarceration judge logan acknowledged that but in a balance mine is missed that and did not consider it knowing that it was over ten years old and it was not obese is for your decision it wasn't considered new sentencing faces right now necessarily an easy question so i would say that i don't know that there is a case that says it directly applies i think that the supreme court the reasonable likelihood test and the th circuit appears to require triggering event and i think we've established there's a triggering event to consider the reasonable likelihood analysis and so in that situation the court can consider the fact that there is a  nd judge but just like the cases let's see colton were chief in it as an example where a scholar might argue that those mean that there is not or no longer and you have a institutionally interest or motivation there's no triggering event for the jury so they don't have the same types of things that they were in peers would have been concerned with they're not reoccupied with those things and if you t five where the government conceded and the magistrate judge concurred and the supreme court and he thought that is what it should be and so judge logan then adopted that but because we do actually handled by a different judge with a different view of the matter ultimately there's really no triggering events that would suggest that the corps had any reason to self indicate if i may take a step there's nothing in the law or nothing in the record suggests that the court had an institutional motivation to discourage either mr valdez lopez or other defendants from going to trial on appeal  of you know that there is a presumption of indic this is simply unfounded and i would ask the court deny it now the question now becomes whether the court abused its discretion when it in the end it lee reviewed the record the the court focused on the seriousness of the defend its conduct and the emotional harm caused to in the court's words to a staggering number of victims this is a very serious hostage taking case involving a large number of victims there were over seventy people held hostage in a small three bedroom house thread of course in context those seventy people were held in bedrooms i think one witness testified that he was in one of the bedrooms with thirty people there forced the said they were allowed to stand there were starved and they were threatened with violence the court focused on that and stated that you know in his discretion he felt that he had to give some consideration to all of these victims yesterday i would also say that he was punished for the can count the conviction that the jury found him guilty of oh no i understand rather and i'm not arguing that within the meaning of the doctrine that he's been punished for going to trial if he clearly is not there's this happens every day you advisory guideline range was which was life to be a reasonable one it was different from what i recommended but again there are varying degrees of what would be a reasonable sentence under the advisory i mention for all the reasons i stated here today as well as absolute bar to a nd judge and it would be inconsistent with the intent