of a guideline factors that show basis for an upward variance it's appropriate to set those things out separately from the factors that generally support whatever the chosen sentence might be we ask for something more specific when we are giving something that it and to the extent there's a variance provide the specific things that inform the court for purposes of meaningful ellett review to know what things there were beyond the general justification and thirty five fifty three a that might have supported any  whatever he said was he said in open court right he did but it's all up to the point prior where he's addressing the arguments in response to mitigation my god my client asked for one hundred twenty month sentence which may have been that's exactly why it doesn't really make it a giver so he says before or afterwards right other than i guess i'm just saying what paul says especially about being sufficient in to be specific in we don't have any of those things we have about seven pages of an explanation for why you shouldn't get a low sentence which we accept but then why should he get twenty eight months higher than the high end of the guideline range that's essentially a ten word explanation based on the thirty five fifty three a factors judge finds that there's basis for an  if that's the right understanding of golf and everybody's been doing it wrong all these years i mean this is just really a novel argument i surely didn't do all of this we certainly did wrong before the censor guidelines  imagine gall was thoughtful and laid things out in the sequence that the supreme court thought was preferable so far as courts doing everything right or doing everything wrong we've got a recent history under supervised release which got no challenges here were things been done for a long either before or afterwards that that would be your prerogative of course your honor i think actually my argument is comporting with what gall says if there's not a necessity of a particular sequence we'd still have a problem with the of the explanation it wasn't adequate the judge adequately explained the reason for rejecting the request of leniency articulate his reasons for that but didn't do anything in similar fashion to justify the upward variance that's where the problem lies independent of the sequential aspect of what happened there's not an adequate explanation that allows a sport to conduct meaningful of kalak review for the reasons that support a poor variance of twenty eight months and it's a significant amount of time thank you very much mr robertson of record in one nine hundred ninety eight when this defendant had his first case in front of judge gilbert so i'm dealing specifically with the repeater as was judge gilbert the district court did not get procedural error when imposing the sentence what the law requires is the sense in court to provide a record that merely assures this court that the sentencing court consider the statutory provisions judge gilbert did a very thorough job in considering the thirty five fifty three factors how do they pick the number two hundred sixteen months for the symptoms your honor i don't know how he picked the number two hundred sixteen months i know that's the number that the government recommended was appropriate based on the thirty five fifty three factors i know that when the court that's what the government recommended was that the guy who's expanding and wonder what was the theory of the two hundred  sixty s what was the post the recommendations the basis of the recommendation of that virtually all of the thirty five fifty three factors weighed against the defendant there you get to a number like two hundred sixty and judge there's some  again you look at what is what is sufficient and the court in the government believes and ultimately the court the way that the two hundred sixteen months which was below the two hundred forty maximum allowable in this case that two hundred sixteen months  adequately addressed and served the the thirty five fifty three factors and i believe in this case even it sets in the government thought that made mention that the factors probably supported a two hundred forty month sentence in this case that we have your government months what the government did was it said when you look at all the thirty five fifty three factors the government believes that the two hundred sixteen month sentence is appropriate to address all of the aggravating factors in this case  the guideline range so here is twenty eight months just under fifteen percent and what the district court said was that the guideline range was insufficient certain areas in those areas being  crime to punish the defendant for the crimes that he committed in this case which dealt with selling crack cocaine cocaine while not only on parole but also on home confinement also on electronic monitoring and wearing an ankle bracelet the judge actually judge if if he he could of and i think that it would have been supportable by the record again i would indicate we're here on the procedural error whether or not the district court committed procedural error we're not talking  and the government believes that the doesn't mean your think you'd say well i could give him two hundred forty months i could stick with one hundred eighty eight but i think i think the sentence should be in between but shouldn't  explain how he hit on two sixteen you judge what he did is he addressed thirty five fifty three factors and how now bloody five fifty three factors do not generate a number of set so i'm just curious whether judges are just picking these numbers out of a hat or whether they actually make a computation of some sort that the purposes that he believed he was obligated to serve you out of the government believes there was no procedural error in this case and respectfully request that the court affirmed the judgment that it's ok thanks mr  listen misheard the government the government said it doesn't know why the judge picked two hundred sixty lines i think that's a problem here we should be able to look at the transcript and see the exact reasons why the judge picked two hundred sixteen months we have the judge saying all the reasons to reject mitigating arguments dense like a sentence of two hundred sixteen months but he doesn't cite the facts the government just reciting about committing the offense once a provision or the ankle monitor issue or any of those things i did was probably enough that he said nothing that we sent you do deter you i don't know why i didn't give them the maximum well we're thankful that he didn't well then why are you appealing i didn't file the appeal or point on the i p o and i t pass regardless of how experience a judge that judges an s s d of an adequate explanation is inherent regardless of the experience and tenure of the judge this is inadequate we ask that my client be given a chance to get really sentence of course you can expect that we're going to try to argue copper and everything else that we can show about post sentencing mitigation in order to help this guy get a lower sentence it's a long time he's taken every shot that he can to help himself reduce the total amount of time