was found in his cell and by attempting to persuade mr taylor to sign a declaration but mr wilson's mere presence to those conversations between mr mitchell and mr taylor i don't believe rise to the level of obstruction of justice this carol peterson and i represent the plaintiff appellee united states of america as the court is well aware this case has a rather unique and long history the defendant has been sentenced by judge real three times and has taken his case to this court each time in the context of this long history your honour's i believe that it is clear that the district court both understood the nature of its sentencing discretion in this case and also properly calculated the applicable guideline range in this case to have around you simply focused on only certain facts add to the exclusion of others and as the court is is reviewing this case i would direct you specifically to the excerpts of record pages eighty four to ninety seven at page eighty four taylor testified specifically that he was speaking to his cousin via the vent system and m d c body mitchell came on that system as well and at that point both men talked to him about the fact that wilson and mitchell didn't like the situation that taylor was in in terms of examination at page ninety three he discusses the fact that that his cousin clearly spoke to him about signing the declaration now  court justice physically make a factual finding regarding the involvement of the defendant your honor he did not make that specific factual finding regarding it involvement of the train it here as the court has already noted second sentencing at the initial recent meeting he did say that he found that the two enhancements for taking money belonging to a financial institution and obstruction of justice what apply i think it's important to note in the context of this case  the case that had been argued at length before him in this particular sentencing hearing and the judge clearly said at the end of that sentencing hearing that he was imposing a sentence as calculated by the government i don't believe that there's any  issue about whether or not he did in fact impose the obstruction of justice and has from both parties under agree and understand that he did that the really the only issue is whether or not he should have made factual findings he did not make a specific factual finding and i don't hundred thirty eight sixty seven and that particular case that the court acknowledged that generally factual findings are not necessary and only the conclusions to be drawn from those facts are in dispute but the court noted that carter there were several several actual specific factual issues that were in dispute that should have been resolved by the district court specifically in that case the number of individuals that this person directed in order to  manager or supervisor position her portrayal of her role as a distributor of checks and the number of checks that she distributed were directly in dispute and that he's was in direct contrast to to this particular case around as the defense had an opportunity in it is trying to make here which is that defendant never objected as a whole to taylor's testimony he stated that the evidence was insufficient so supporting enhanced meant he stated that the evidence failed to prove the enhancement but nowhere did he attack the factual underpinning