action and i say that because the looking at criminal history their offense took place twenty six years before the arrest in this case and our position is th is being caused by his conduct is certainly something to consider there's also the fact that for those if they came to nineteen years by the time he was arrested again in that  is as you said the operative word here but that's all we have there's no known involvement by mr gustafsson that you know and the only time you've been imprisoned for anything prior to this in th highlighted by the judge's comments of a thirty year continuous participation in the drug trade when in reality when you do look at his record and you look at the timeline and what we do know it's not an accurate depiction of mr what our position is each one of those are valid concerns but when you address the root of the fact of the failures they consider various issues as they really relate to each other they result again in a sixty two year old person in poor health who received who involvement in this case was i'm not going to put him in the category of a snap deterrent that i fail to see how on the subsequent commit conviction committed while he was still our role for that i could get him up a lot of guidelines sentencing range that seems to be implicitly addressing ninety conviction yes your honor that the evidence of that can be found in the pre sentence investigation report and based on comments made by the district court at the beginning of the s the location of those employees so that information was on verify i bring that up because i've given that the district court read the presenters investigation report and stated on the record they actually get done so  it was reasonable for the court to infer that during that nineteen year period because there was on verified employment there was also additional illegal caught conduct that the defendant admitted that he had engaged in being a lawful eally entering the united states his role were frank sartor of those in the offense the defendant may have come into the offense in a later stage and others but his role was significant he was involved completely and that direct comment by the court w to support by additional evidence that was also available to the district court specifically what i'm referring to are the the facts as outlined in the plea agreement and which is the defendant himself and made it that he had participated a report called which involved the coldest night in the east coast and also himself and the undercover officer and these calls occurred on october eleventh in october twelfth so the day before the actual transaction the actual day of the that ultimately decided the lead up location and also the quantity that would be sold the defendant further admitted in the police agreement that he was the individual along with codefendant omar landon who entered the car with the undercover officer and verified that the money was brought before the drugs were actually delivered all of this information was available to the district court judge and therefore that is why the court expressed we commented that the are the record for this court's review the court has this court only has to determine that the district court gave a meaningful consideration of all of the arguments presented by both parties and the government within it to the court that based on the review of the record that the court did give it meaning meaningful consideration to all of the factors that were present and ultimately determined that and weighing those factors the seriousness of this offense and also the need to promote respect for the time he committed the instant offense so for all of those reasons the government will maintain that there was no procedural error in this case and a sense of defense argues just briefly about argue briefly about substantive doing at the time within the parameters of the star in my recollection is that he was able to give general locations of where these fires were actually indicated that they were now point and i sleep with one of them he may have been given the name to where he was working and in terms of being responsible for the arranging location of the transaction within the record what think you have a pretty good handle on what his involvement was in this case he was not to want to set up a transaction he did not bring the heroin he did not contact the source to get the heroin he did not bring a weapon this is one of that is this one of the other co defendants brought to