the different judges because it i don't see where you would have much of an argument that one judge decides to exercise discretion to impose sanctions for example on everybody you who is late and it appears that in a significant number of cases of this particular judge did indeed impose sanctions on counsel but you know also in a significant number of cases he did not impose sanctions on counsel who allegation here the argument here is that there is no discernible standard being used hence it's arbitrary but i think you are that the situation is no different from other situations  and occasions where he and it seems that it was planted those from not even hearing from counsel and it seems that he offers explanations a little over half the time he offers an opportunity to show cause and doesn't and a little under th sixty percent of the time so i don't understand why wouldn't there be a consistent rule that attorneys would be able to provide an explanation that somebody could get run over by a bus on the way to the courthouse and if the courts position is automatically they're not here i mean i'm sanctioning it just doesn't make sense to me right and perhaps that is because this court has and every time it's confronted the question said the better practice is to give the opportunity to checked the calendar and looked at the court's calendar but because it looked at its usual calendar which is the criminal calendar and little is the case and the government didn't show up and it was imposed sanctions after show cause and look for reconsideration of the sanctions by this very same judge were not  we don't have those superb brief in effect filed at our request by the district court judge that very effectively lays out the law but nowhere in any of those do i see anything that  sanctioned you know unless you were you know in the hospital dad or something like that preceded ministry to be no sense it's arbitrary everybody's got notice they pay it and we probably look at only whether it was too big or not right  not showing up and there are just couldn't be an adversarial process at that time she pointed to other cases for sometimes a small time defendant cases and perhaps the court looks at other attorneys were present and there was an adversarial process in the court was able to all the hearing i think that there are still factors at the court can look at in making that sanctions determination that that don't necessarily make it arbitrary and capricious you know we have a very lenient a abuse and this course concerned at this request concern of the systemic problem of attorneys not being more in and when i say not being in court it means just not being in the horror room because that standing order talks about attorneys congregating outside and it's letting attorneys know that you can tie his hands to have to impose sanctions because the world in which every time an attorney is absent or a late results and sanctions wouldn't be a world that we want to practice what would be the downside of saying before the i and this court can make it a requirement the government position just in this case in responding to the particular controversy before it is because a court has left it at a better practice another requirement that alone could make it an abuse of discretion and and the point i was trying to make when the judge beings in those serious about will compliance and yes he has not imposed it consistently but this is also a judge that sanctioned himself and that he's made it a matter of public record and he sanctioned himself for we don't want to have many trials over one hundred dollars sanctions so we you could certainly just have a rule that if you're not there he pay a one hundred dollars for a few cell phone goes off you pay fifty dollars and form goes on during the hearing that's in the presence of the court and the court is looking at the attorney what is going on but when it is a failure to appear in court proceeding decor doesn't know what happened and i think