the twenty year maximum with the court and the prosecutor remaining silent to that advice that sentence was infected and the defendant everybody was i mean you didn't object right somewhat novel issues i might say that of your we've raised regarding the consecutive nature of the sentences might conceivably be avoided by addressing the guideline issues if they were resolved in our favor but i'll address if i may the consecutive sentences use first and then turn to the guideline issues rest of my brief for the remainder subject to your hundred questions the first question has to do with the advice that was omitted at the change of police card with no mention whatsoever of the tax counts and therefore no mention at all the of the total mass of sadness that the defendant potentially face just one question  looked and none of us has found why a violation of that kind yet there are plenty of pharmacists prosecutions so why is a pharmacist in a position of trust of the population is that he's not and therefore the long well that would be right and that you would look to the other kinds of licenses how are other licensed professionals treated the government in trusts with a sort of special authority by virtue of their licenses and that's why i say in the grief that to use these expressions in common vocabulary turns it there's an attraction to viewing the pharmacist as being in a position of trust we trust the pharmacist to dispense safely e in common parlance we do trust pharmacists in that way but this is not what the guidelines mean by a position of trust where there is substantial discretion conferred on someone to make decisions of how to do something that  then used in relation to a victim of the crime the via the trust then violated in terms of the victim of a crime the closest cases are really more like the public health kinds of cases than other some in other other circuits and we don't even have if you know you don't need you need a victim in the private trust situation yes you need one in the general public trust well the public trust places in this court have been involved in public employees who violated their position of trust usually the public in pharmacy state regulated thirteen licensed there really but closely regulated and not discretionary that we never this is a very close factual question is the kind of discretion we don't know here how can we say it's clear there's no case as far as forms there's precious little case law on the violation of public trust even most of the examples in the commentary on even those who stood for public trust are really private trust a review well this court's way of handling now questions under the guidelines under planar review has been to look and see if it is clear under the guidelines as written that there is a there there is an  clearly felt here he told her to fill out the prescriptions he told them when they come to have the prescriptions filled home or not to come when they might get caught then and then actually fill the prescriptions to put the drugs on the street a little more than just giving tips research is that the just having the role of distributor in a drug distribution conspiracy with underlings does not make you a supervisor of those persons is a concern but we don't have the kind of control over another culpable individual which is required by the cases you have someone with a more responsible position we're tempted to say leader because he's more of a big shot but that doesn't make you automatically a supervisor o of on case he has the burden of showing plainer author did not apply plan or number three that case was completely based on you know section three six fifty one which is repeal the one hundred eighty seven and if i could just go through that really quickly to show  about a pharmacist this checks that individual to a public trust and has been as opposed to any of the licensing well i think first of all i think certain license individuals well depending on what what it is that they are charged with  doing exactly what he was given the discretion to do which is look at the scriptures look at prescriptions and not fill bogus ones and flood the streets with her and i think i want to disagree with the defendant here pharmacist have a lot of this question and all you have to do is look he abuse is usually on public interest in a way that significantly zalman say his crime and i think that's almost where we should be spending a little more one fourteen there are five seventeen and that's a case about an attorney who abuses decision of public trust by this we generally up a subpoenas more than a public lawyer he was just an attorney licensed by the scaife expected to behave in a certain plants and he was you know flowing you know flooding the water with pollutants and that case i want to point out had a stronger sample where the dissent said well he's not a licensed pilot a doctor an attorney here we do have a licensed guy who has the keys to the medicine court explicitly found which is that this defendant supervised and directed these coconspirators and just she actually pointed out he explained how to write the prescriptions in such a way he told them when not to use certain prescription pads is this supervising or just tell me who had conspiracy and the whole point of this conspiracy again getting back to the pharmacist then was that it looked perfectly legitimate he was taking prescriptions filling them as if they were real prescriptions handing out the drugs just as he would on a normal everyday basis to make this appear perfectly order the district court simply to amend the judgment to include the forfeiture order and it's clearly has keeping role that could be fixed at any time and which we would have fixed if i knew that we wouldn't be you know butting up against this question of section should we take the it's not clerical when nothing happens at the sentencing hearing or in the judge then the judge will correctly reflects what happened at the sentencing hearing and that has to be determined remember that's not the subject of this the abuse a position of trust does not apply to suggest that the special skill is more likable but again this is not something the government asked for it wasn't imposed and the government shouldn't get relief for something that it didn't seek and ask for in a pain  you just say with respect to other cases the fullest compilation of authority if you want to look to the other circuits is the eleventh circuit cases the eleventh circuit has looked more often at this issue than any other that seven circuit dissent that government mentioned judge judge coffey is very good but burden and presented evidence with respect to the how to fill out the prescription pad they did not rely to and support the enhancement on this g r or the other the other pharmacists in response to the defendant's