length about his extraordinary family circumstance circumstances which included being the sole provider for his significant other and their six children one of whom was born with a congenital breathing disorder  graham made some pretty serious mistakes even before the robberies he begins dealing from the all believe that's what gets him fired and then he uses knowledge of the way stopped that is that the court considered all of the relevant sentencing factors including the arguments in support arguments and mitigation support of the sentence that imposes we don't dispute that this was a serious case  court was free to consider and should have considered the seriousness of the case but were not all agreeing with you that the court was pretty brief about the points that mr graham was making that it does actually say that it understands that he has these financial challenges that that might be his explanation about it but the court just doesn't find that persuasive mitigating factor i mean it could be material judge would in in the view all case your honor writing for the majority noted that the mention of a word is not the same thing as a discussion or an  the the court's the court simply touched on it i agree that it probably rejected the financial distress argument but it didn't really explain why del was a very different case because  and mental health evaluation and whether or not the court had sufficiently considered the impact of a mental health evaluation correct here but would you agree that the thrust of the mitigation arguments really were his financial condition and that being what drove him i think i would agree that the two primary arguments that we made in support of the medication one was the financial distress and the second was the  you know extraordinary family circumstances or the family circumstances arguments really linked to the financial condition the fact that he needed to provide for these six children the fact that one of them had medical conditions that resulted in a lot of medical bills and he was strapped in a financial condition it wasn't the tip book will i need to physically be there to cure or for a child who has some kind of disability in reading the transcript it seemed that you were arguing the six children think that he was real financial strain and i lost my job and couldn't handle it i think all of the sentencing arguments in this case were judge would pointed out he talked about the financial issue and said something that that just does not provide a meaningful excuse for why you cannot and he says i appreciate like so many we are confronted with very well planned i think one way of i guess interpretating or rephrasing what the court said is i heard what you said but it doesn't matter and it doesn't matter not persuaded that it's a good enough reason to give you a lower it doesn't really matter whether the person who commits the offense was a career offender who was robbing someone because they got a kick out of doing it because others just saying i'm doing what i'm supposed to do under thirty five fifty three a you are a defendant standing before me one of the things that you have to do is look at your history and characteristics and you have argued mitigating circumstances because of your financial condition and need to care for your children i am considering t persuaded that that should give you the break that you're asking for if that is what the court said i don't think we would be standing here but the court didn't say the court basically said that i appreciate that you like so many of us we have financial circle financial difficulties but that doesn't justify or explain we were offering our as an excuse or a defense but the context of why someone engages in criminal activity the circumstances that lead this human being to be in that situation are required consideration under thirty five fifty three but why wasn't that a sufficient consideration when the judge the district court had said i've considered you know your family circumstances the financial distress but this crime is just too serious and that  picky are we supposed to be though i mean frankly reading the transcript from the commonsense point of view i don't see the message i got from it that this was just too serious you planned it you terrorize these people you did all these things  this case is that the defendant didn't like the court's explanation for the sentence it's not that the court didn't sufficiently explain the sentence or that the court didn't comply with all of its procedural requirement it absolutely did on a number of occasions it addressed the principal arguments in mitigation that the defense has conceded were interrelated all of the arguments and what was the principal argument in mitigation it was the defendant's financial circumstances based on his family obligations to care for these sick children the court addressed those financial circumstances and explain why those financial circumstances weren't sufficient to overcome the extremely violent serious nature of six armed robberies and a seven hundred armed robbery in which the defendant admitted that he carried a loaded he was carrying a loaded gun that sorts the court did not specifically ot addressed if they aren't married what do you mean by i don't see that argument how are you defining their arguments that people routinely make in cases of this nature and if there's not something extra about them if there's not something mitigating about them then the court read not explicitly addressed or if it mentions that it has addressed or considered all of the defendants arguments which is what happened here in this case the court started sentencing by saying it had reviewed the twel it's then a permitted mr mueller and the defendant to give additional arguments in which they reiterated those same issues and then the government itself mentioned the history in characteristics and alerted the court that it should consider the matter and the court said th but it said after considering them there's too much in the way of criminal conduct and that's our page twenty five that's the court's explanation for why those sort of stock arguments don't merit a reduction in the sentence provided as just how important i think what i hear you saying is that we do know for a fact that the court was aware of those arguments because it's a statement about reading since you made a memorandum and then the oral exchange them went on at the sentencing hearing so i take it that's an important factor if we're going to say the court really did procedurally approach the sentence in the right way yes your honor i think that is unfortunate i think that's what the court has said and it has addressed specifically these arguments back arguments in new star and page and the other and it says specifically holding these kinds of arguments about education family characteristics the sort of standard arguments that are raised in almost all sentencings don't need to be explicitly reiterated the court need not say i have considered your family circumstances i have considered drug use i've considered your education the court doesn't need to go through those in checklist fashion  rule i know we've said that a lot of times i'm not challenging bad peers all over the place but when judge you need to ask the question what's a stock argument it actually turns out to be hard to define because all of these things are a little bit different for each person saying i've considered the following arguments from thirty five minutes longer would be wouldn't take too long i think one harm is that it requires the sort of talismanic checklist recitation might actually harm the court ability to pay attention to the most important arguments of the court as in front of it a list of things and says i have to check off all these things and i have to just say the words the court is not really providing this court with a meaningful explanation of it sentence well as if you know some of the factors just required i've thought about this and i see nothing out of the ordinary so the guidance of the guidelines seems sensible to me but i'm going to focus on argument six and eight you know i don't know i don't see what the harm is but that's exactly what this court has instructed courts to do to say i have considered your arguments i consider the three five five three factors i consider everything that you've submitted i've heard what you've said and here's what i think really matters and you sort of bury what really matters when you require these tout this tells manic language recitation of checklist factors where would you draw the line on  argument when to stack argument becomes something that the court should individually address you can't say anything at all arguments about drug usage and education or stack arguments because that's just not the case with defendants coming before the court but where's the line with us across the i think that's really the district court and it's individualized in every case i don't think that you can say you know when someone has a college degree that stack argument when someone's drug use permeates their criminal history that's not a stock argument i think it's individualized in every case and i think the district for is in the best position to make that determination and this court is reviewing what the district court has done in trying to determine if it's stacked versus cross issue rather than just a characteristic issue so in the crack cocaine disparity cases where the counterfeit the drug was the majority of the cocaine the court should have probably this would help the court should have addressed the disparity more seriously because that really undercut the criminal conduct in that case and so when we're talking about arguments that go without culpability for the crime it's a different than when we're just talking about a person's circumstances and when we consider all those circumstances there's a whole whether the person has presented an extraordinary case and this court has done the same thing in family circumstances where it single parents so care takers and opinions of psychologists or other experts brought to bear about them serious consequences to a person's family that go beyond the normal ordinary case where someone's being taken away from their family is a concern troll or made the same point as well so when something goes outside of the typical case outside of the typical impact of a prison sentence we can call that not a stock argument but where someone is merely saying i have a family and i need to support them that's true for every single person who goes under the criminal justice system and that is a stark argument that the court implicitly can consider and reject without stating so  and frankly your honor the cases that the defendants i bring with those points to bear pisano is a perfect example cited by the defendant in their case the court said the financial circumstances that led the defendant to commit the crime didn't goes into the deal i think it does but that argument didn't animate this court's decision on sentencing the court made that statement and has made that statement in the past as pointed out by the defense counsel but make you give a lower sentence if you're trying to save the government money assuming the government wanted one and that's what your honor and in this case he did get about lower sentenced to eighteen months below the low end of the guideline rains two years below what the government recommended and frankly what animated the sentence was the court's statement there was too much in the way of criminal conduct here it wasn't the cost of incarceration and there was quite a bit in the way of criminal conduct this was someone who really terrorized all the employees for a period of six months and the court took that into consideration and gave them a low guideline sent give somebody a lower sentence which would be nice for the defendant george starr no routinely imposes sentences only below the guideline range and i believe that his view of the costs of incarceration are the basis for generally departing from that elementary school math teacher it struck in their students to show their work i think that's what this sport is really asks judges to do and we submit that it wasn't done here and we would ask that the court vacate the others all right well thank you