this is my st time in this fashion before this court and may please the court and counsel many ms david partovi appearing on behalf of loretto runners i'm going to open up with a brief summary of my argument and then reserve however much possibly second is that we have a substantively under reasonable sentence which is sort of the thrust of where i wear my gut is on this case work that's worth and then also significantly is that it's very clear from the pleadings in this case that mr the rest so was sentenced to additional time for an charge conduct and unless the court has any questions don't intend to submit what's really any time on the to the statute in that something is sufficient to overcome the presumption of well it seems like a clear indication of intent if i if you disagree with me that's certainly reasonable and  l but it says remanded for resentencing under one statute and so that's our position on  that what what i think is more important in this case is the fact that mr lorenzo was sentenced originally to thirty years and once he was successful  on his appeal on an issue that seemed really commonsense obvious to me anyhow and i don't mean to read intent into the court's opinion beyond what's written there but it seems pretty clear that you can't s punish an individual for that conduct there should be some evidence presented that the conduct was real and attributed to that defendant and we don't have that here we have statements by the present investigating officer which without any indication of personal knowledge so for example if we had maybe a declaration i don't think it's appropriate but that's different than what the court can do what i think is appropriate but a declaration let's say or an indication in the present investigation that the writer saw the video that the writer compared the individual that they saw in the video with a photograph that they have of mr loreto because as we know all of the pre sentence investigation reports contain some kind of a photograph of the defendant and that it was clear from the present investigation reports writer that that was mr loreto that he did do these things that it was in a prison setting something like that i don't believe and there's been no allegation by the pre sentence investigation writer that they saw the video it seems to me from these pleadings that they were informed that he did it and that it was on video well you know we objected to all of that and it wasn't until the very end that it was clear to me that this was going to happen so my recollection is we objected to the scope of the recent saying we objected to the the prisoner presentation of that additional information but to very accurately answer that question your honor i would have to open up a few documents that i have not opened up today luckily in my desk and i could  time judge and i've had the executive branch of government say a lot of things that i have affirmatively disprove it so i don't know because i wasn't able to do an independent investigation with that said i will concede that the evidence was challenging for mr loreto but without the opportunity to cross examine a law enforcement officer i don't even know if there were five people in that self they said what they said they said in a police report but i just i've read too many appreciate there could be a factual question about it but or no i don't think so that's just not how the communication with i'm looking at my sensing document now but but i don't think on this date no that would have the present investigation report by them and i do not remember if it included the alleged escape attempts but you know we we these are are very fluid things and what i'm arguing now is based on what happened at the sentencing and when i was drafting the sentencing memorandum and in our objections i don't think that was the topic that we were on so well i i don't recall if the escape attempt was i do know i do believe that that the assault in the prison was and i don't see any any reference to either of these issues and there are so of every it appears somewhere else i  i'm sure you're right when i open up the document but it's difficult to go through a fourteen page document on the fly like this my recollection is this was a contested issue at the sentencing phase  i was not prepared to discuss those particular facts at today's hearing i was more going to discuss the propriety of winning an appeal and then having it set back and getting more time i think it's absolutely a reasonable i think it smacks of retaliation  well to me the crux of the reasonableness of this of this sentence along the lines of the ressam case we're now there's differences there of course but were that he was successful brief there was no objection to the information in the p s r relating to the g o p stabbing and there was no objection relating to the information in the p s r regarding the escape attempt both the stabbing and the escape attempt are detailed in the p s are in fact the picture of the hole in the cell that i included in my brief on page eleven that is from the p s r itself actually and so all of that information was in the p s r it was not objected to and for that reason we didn't have an evidentiary hearing and as i said in my brief under united states versus emeline the district court is  may rely on undisputed statements in the p s r at sentencing and that's why we didn't have an evidentiary hearing on either of those the stabbing or the escape attempt is because no objection was made and  to answer another question to the court of puts two opposing counsel yes absolutely the district court is entitled to rely on the facts about defendant's conduct in between the st sentencing in the  sentencing i think the supreme court made that clear united states pursues wasserman that that that's absolutely appropriate for the district court to take into account an argument regarding the substantial reasonable this is  if in between if at the st sentencing the defendant which he did hear makes an argument to explain i'm sorry for i acknowledge that what i did was bad i did that because i was  bad or dark place at the time and and that's why i made those mistakes and he does so in a very calm demeanor to display to the court that's not what i'm about anymore and then we reappear in sentencing again and he has the same calm demeanor but that calm demeanor is belied by his conduct in between the two sentencings and absolutely the district court can impose a higher sentence and that's exactly what the court did in this case and if even explain  please change the order and i think the reason why he changed the order of what was consecutive to what i think that was based on his goal of wanting to get back to three hundred and sixty mean i'm sorry i didn't hear the question your honor when you get to three hundred and ninety six months there are three things you need absolutely he did i think i think he followed the government's recommendation to add three years because of the post sentencing conduct but obviously there's a lot more going on than just adding the three years the court had to restructure what sentences were concurrent and which ones were consecutive in order to get back just to the original sentence of three hundred and sixty months know the math was done completely differently the nd time around your honor so it is a little bit difficult to follow i acknowledge that and so that the court didn't  that is correct i don't think i don't think the court ever specifically stated i'm giving use three years pacifically because of the post sentencing conduct i don't i don't recall the court ever saying i don't think he did well that's true although in the st paragraph of the opinion it says we have a firm in part and reversed in part and remained for resentencing period and so i think if the court had wanted to only for resentencing on just the two drug counts i think it would have been very easy for the court to have been more clear about that then i think that the language of the court was just  the one thing that's pretty cl well but in that st in the st reference they are quoting from a different court opinion so i think this is the reference in the nd sentence is to make clear that what they had just quoted from some other opinion applied in this case to have a lemon i think if the court had said we therefore remain for the limited purpose of re sentencing on counts four and five only that would have sentencing only on counts four and five we leave the sentence on counts one through three undisturbed or language like that would have been really clear exactly what they wanted to have done and that language isn't in there and and that really a general remained even if we step away from the language in this particular opinion and just look at comparing this case the facts of this case the nature of this case with the mild decision that i cite in the brief it's very similar the court clearly bundled all these counts together created a sentencing package and when two of those sentences were vacated it undid the entire honor obviously just briefly i think the language is clear in the other direction we vacate the drugs and sent back for resentencing under the drug statute moreover the murder for hire counts were not before this court in two thousand and seventeen or whenever it was finally heard we just didn't appeal those and so the only thing before the court was the drug counts i will add though and this is where my subset of unreasonable ss argument rises and falls is that if the language had been clear in the memorandum to mr seales approval and the words very clear that the he was not to be sentenced on anything other then i think what you'd see is at least a thirty year sentence and it would be we're going to run the statutory maximum or restructure it to be you know a twenty three year sentence and run that consecutive i think i don't know