first case i thought the heart of your argument was the push for an explanation of the sentencing decision here the judge referred to material and there was no indication in the record where this information was coming from the video in particular the motion for probation revocation discusses the new criminal conduct in the barest of ways it doesn't go into any of the circumstances of the offense so i thought you're objecting to the fact that the judge was looking at the video talking about details that he saw in the video which made it a very threatening circumstance to a cashier perhaps to the somebody who was just an observer factor in the judge's decision and you said this he said where does that come from and nobody told us that that was going to factor into prosecutor one thing is that the probably government never never asked for halfman beyond the fourteen months with the time i think that's important and they have evidence in the from what i saw and what i've been explained by the probation officer there was no other individual also outside of the station he also praised the officer for risking his life by protecting the female cashier in those n the judge after he had pronounced the son oh sure scuse me if you object to the sentence you asked the judge in effect to explain his sentence more thoroughly honor may please call it times come for him to have the united states in this case is the government's position that the court did not air or if you look at the record the defendant had all this evidence actually before the court before the hearing was proceeded the defendant have filed a motion for a continuance request because they want to review the discovery an abundance of caution went to the court to if you look at documentary three five hundred in order that the court and the probation officer give all the evidence that they have regarding this case to the defendant for its review so the defendant had in this case everything possible including criminal complaint i'm saying video he even acknowledges that he had seen the video and everything else for sure because the mask was shown it was actually part of the criminal complaint if you read the criminal complaint the affidavit that's attached in which went no matter which the probation officer cited to criminal complaint in its motion to the court regarding what had happened in this case and here's the defendant had it where is the air the defendant had all this evidence to begin with and it had the criminal complaint which was even broader than let's say what the video was and also had a video recording itself actually defendant want to really discovery of the case so it had all available fast so you can see it's new facts the defendant should not have been surprised in this case all this evidence was on the record so basically they're in a criminal complaint or if you look at the video and things there it is showing what had happened what it rest and what had happened and the struggle and that's clearly stated in the criminal complaint in this case and about the mask and everything else so my understanding is consul and the defendant and here even state's counsel stated at the beginning of the proceeding that one yes he admits now and it's true the police officer was present when the government was ready to proceed with the evidence and what you the court asked the defendant are you challenging the evidence that is in this case and the defendant specifically stated no so who he was aware of the evidence that was in this case so based on that where it was or any error no anyway in this case but also if you look at what the court rely on it relied on it says this is not his first time before the court in this case he had of previous firing and that's what the court stressed on if you look this defendant and what he even stayed with him one year after being released he was already possessing a firearm again what was it previously convicted of that resulted in the supervis release condition firearms and drugs what was he caught again now firearms and using a precise in drugs he can't plus he also stated this was not the only time this was actually his fourth time possessing weapons he had two convictions with the defendant knows about so therefore what the court relied on was he was able to comply with this condition which apply with the condition as well as the law by it because this was his fourth time and that is why the court relied upon this when the counsel part of it he was confused ari karloff current his question was to the effect of if you look at it he wasn't just he was just trying to figure out the directions of supervision no that is where the judge goes into then throwing out just generally ok this was another crime and that's what he was focusing on and decided look he was involved again with a firearm person possession of a and then simply restates the elements of the offense with the additional detail that the possession involved a clock pistol with a certain serial number correct the motion does not provide any information about the details of the offense where the position took place that they're in fact that there was an armed robbery here is it your position  defense counsel should come to the pro page probation revocation hearing being prepared to sort of argue in mitigation that the circumstances of this offense were really all that bad should it come they're trying to minimize by going and all the details of the offense what the culpability of his client was is that your position could you keep saying defense counsel knew what would happen and defense counsel should have been prepared to argue all the details of the offense even though this motion doesn't win any of those details at all well it doesn't form that fall the presence of an outsider the use of a mask none of that is set forth here but your position i gather that defense counsel should have since he knew all those details he should have been prepared to argue all of those details and tried to mitigate the sentences is a true position well i think in this case you know you have to first you have to step back or you can answer that question i can answer that question because you have to look at what the court actually rely on that he possessed a farm this was his fourth time and everything else this was in response to defense counsel's question where he improperly thought what the court was implying of course i know i'm not implying that so it doesn't what the court didn't write rely on that he had a mask in this that relied on the sense that he did because he was answering a question that was mis understanding what was in this it was a misunderstanding my counsel i think what my understanding was he was saying he believes that no conditions can be i'm intimidating then he goes under stand the defender was not able to follow the structure in the direction of supervision and there he goes no he fall in almost for a year and till he committed another crime and therefore what his main focus to he committed another crime which was here being a felon in possession of firearms that he just went to as part of the evidence you have a video it's going into just saying what you focus on is just another crime which is here does say well he committed another similar offense he emphasizes the circumstances of this offense and that seemed to matter a lot to the judge in deciding to impose the sense that he did if i could mansur you also have to look in this case what are what you can look at the seriousness of the offense the seriousness of the offense relates that all these factors and events council should have been aware of that if you look under chapter seven part a three b what you can look at i s also the seriousness of the offense what is part of the seriousness of the offense the fact the potential related to what occurred in the event so that's what the government thank you