issue in this case is whether the court's references to extraneous and inappropriate matters at sentencing constituted a procedural error they did because the court's remarks make it impossible to determine what motivated the court's choice sentence the court's remarks also create at the very least the perception that the court actually relied on was inappropriate in extraneous matters in choosing a sentence i want to begin by talking about the court's remarks about past b i mean i totally agree with you the judge randall says a lot of things that are extremely far afield from anything mr robinson was doing or anything that should have been brought up i understand the government's argument to be roughly notwithstanding that if you don't leak all of the inappropriate things from the sentencing transcript there's an awful left over a little bit of a frank's hearing or something there's enough left over that is appropriate under thirty five fifty three his bad criminal record the fact that it's heroin the fact that even though it was only two months he was at least for that says that the court's remarks an extraneous matters undermine all else that is said and i think that's that's what we have here because as i said at the outset we don't know what motivates the court's ultimate decision about could tell us what makes his case more like math and less like wilson and that would be helpful i think there's been a few things to judge i think there's been some evolution in the approach i'd note that wilson these are those are all two thousand and ten cases believe wilson came first followed by smith and figaro i think there are some evolution in the court's thinking about these cases i also it appears that the comments in wilson are a little bit less inflammatory and it appears the sense is better it better explained it was that the court seems to be much more satisfied with the remainder of the remarks here or i think there's even greater concern than there was in figaro and speth because in those cases the judge made had comments about things that were distant things that were happening in mexico or southwest united states or somewhere across the globe whereas here he has  concerns fears even about what might happen in his hometown milwaukee at that very moment and so i think this goes beyond all three of those three of those cases there also in this case there's no really rational link between the riots and heroin trafficking or billy robinson in those cases as far flung as it was the third least was he was talking about the effects of drugs in those other year do vary a person's pronounces it mr robinson had accumulated a pretty miserable criminal history and so even though i realize the government was recommending a low guideline sentence and counsel for mr robinson even further below the judge says you know i think you need to be deterred nothing else is getting through to you and if the rest of the stuff hadn't been in there i don't see why that's any worse than what we usually see well i think there's excessive focus on criminal history to the exclusion of considering  else beyond that but the players suggests to me that he realizes that it wasn't a six and a very good role but the judged focused a little bit on that addiction problems of diversion but there was no mention i think nine firearms were found in their unit along with a lot of ammunition it was two years versus two months of time and i think there's some hyperbole but the exercise by the judge in terms of the of the record as well for me i've had clients with unfortunately worst records and he chose but i wish you would in the full context because the one other point i'll make about this unfortunate line of judge randall cases is that the only presidential opinion is figaro webster smith wilson are all non presidential dispositions and the fact of the matter is there's a deeper look at the facts and everything else in the presidential things i don't know how you just untangle these wild remarks he makes in this particular case from what are certainly conceitedly some legitimate points he raises well i'll get to that address milwaukee riots were happening and look at all this stuff going on in baltimore the freddie gray riots and he talks about it and when i visited my girlfriend it was a mixed pile on isn't that terrible but that's f what i'm trying what i'm trying to figure out is how we assess whether the judge's distress about the ongoing riots in baltimore affected the sentence here because he seemed to be tying the characteristics of the defendant to the causes of bryant's in milwaukee and other cities and and it's not as if these are random remarks they seem to be related to his reasoning and that's what's painful here and actually i don't think i'm going to disagree with the judge i don't think they are now or you're not allowed to do i think the you know the way a couple points to set this up i think when judge rand of sense is a defendant he's looking the person directly in the eye right and he's directing his comments which are often have sort of a moral tone directly to the defendant he's engaging them one of the things i think it actually comes out in smith just probably more parallel in this case is that the judge sometimes fans touchstones of his own experience that relate to the defense experience i know something about that era where you live but there is a problem that is extra record we don't know what he's thinking about it we don't know if he's upset that it's now a racially mixed or even a  neighborhood with the opposite racial characteristics from the one he remembers we don't know why he thinks urban decay is this defendant's fault mean it's he made the well intentioned i'm not in any way questioning the purity of his motives but this is not the way you sentence people right i think in his defense he's trying to ask the defendant to look at it from the bigger picture right and he could say that without comments i'm troubled by his references to it was safe then to go into this neighborhood because it was just then becoming the next i don't like that i think you could put all of those comments together and suggest there's  a disturbing racial overtone to the judge's perceptions in this case i think that's not what tries to sentencing at all but here's the problem would he without any of these extreme or would a judge any reasonable judge and i want to be too personal about this have come to the same sentence for mr robinson if all of the impermissible things are off the table how can we know and here's how it's where one start the judge has a sense can't be no less than the first he compares it to diversion and he says he cannot be what she got because their records are so disparate right and because she had a drug problem she sees her sentence as different and i actually asked him to co seven years right after year more than he got the last sentence thing for a drug trafficking crime street level drug trafficking essentially not that much different than it got here because the question in the judge's mind so we asked look at is how much time is record so what's an add brecker bit to content i mean it's not like he was hammering people you know i can imagine i've seen worse records show i'm sure you have churkin in the context of what we're looking at looking at reset of this right what do we have to do to address this defense to target specific deterrence for this defendant to make sure he does he do it again a judge utterly brushes off his idea that maybe he should just move away from the walky go down to mississippi get out of the bad influences that he's been in all wait what do you do with the other couple of kids yes i see that i think it's a good idea for folks to move away and started to someplace else to me that makes a lot of sense he was direct and again that's sort of his there's no question about that but some of this rhetoric is just terribly worrisome and we don't know how to defy did not how to compartmentalise you know judge i think you know particularly it was is very frankly in the time period that the judge is sentencing the defendant right kind of in the wake of the baltimore riots and the unrest and concerns about racism in the criminal justice system it's really unfortunate right and it's disturbing but if you look at this and really really spit at specific context and say what does he do here but also how does that reference to the baltimore riots relate to anything mr audley point says as it's really extraneous there's no rational link the defendant i think that's really true here right the judge is just sort of engaging in social commentary at that point that has really nothing to do with mr robinson it is a wholly extraneous statement his real focus when he gets to it is your criminal history i can't give you less than you got the last time which is now years i'm going to give you seven and that's what he did so the court in its review trying to find out what did the court say enough right do the statements of the court made allowed us and i see my time is up you have a minute to to find the rational basis for the court's decision yes the court did the court laid out what its reasons and reasoning was the sentence has to reflect just punishment given the seriousness of the crime act on the neighborhood the sentence has to deter the defendant who has been at this point uncontrollable and the sentence has to protect the public from a defense i'm going criminal activity six and a half years wasn't enough last time i'm going to keep this up this time and hope  do what the cases say the court has to do which is look at the sentencing transcript as a whole and as a whole decide whether or not the court has confidence in what the judge did here in the reasons the judge gave and if there is a perception of hundred sixty seven whether it was because of the different criminal record of it we just don't know and that's the that's the problem here i don't think there's any opportunity for meaningful appellate review because we can't tell what went into the sentence mr