first case on for the regular appeal calendar is united states versus philip  issue which is presented in the brief which is the issue that goes to the here's a testimony being plain error unless the court has any specific questions regarding that and would prefer to argue your honour's account the second and third issues which relate to the sense of our position on the sentencing issues your honor is that the district court erred by increasing mr philip zero four levels of for a leadership adjustment and it's our position that the evidence did not support the finding that the court made with regard to the number of participants and or what leadership functions filipo allegedly was performing and usually under three b one point one it indicates for the four level enhanced meant to apply you must have five or more participants in a criminal offense be otherwise extensive or two levels otherwise if you're a manager or supervisor and the first issue to confront is whether or not there was a determination made as  suites sentencing memo it is clear that he treated both to two thousand and thirteen and two thousand and fourteen as two separate conspiracies and it would be or position y of five participants there is no should be civic finding in his sentencing memorandum that there was five participants there was no finding in the present investigation report that was allegedly then indicated additional individuals beyond that but if you do or treated as judge a suite is two separate conspiracies and we look to  rajaratnam decision of this court it is clear that this circuit has not yet taken a position about whether or not you can combine through to two separate conspiracies the number of individuals that are participating in order to reach the number of five it's kind of interesting in reading read your adam that the court said that we don't have to get to the issue of whether or not we can combine them apparently it's an issue that haven't been determined because in the first conspiracy and roger adam they found that there were six participants in this particular case in two thousand and twelve you have one of those particular conspiracies under five individuals even including mr philip oh so it would be our position that there aren't five participants in either of the two conspiracies only works if you combine the two that's correct only works and there are completely different sellers or providers of cocaine in two thousand and thirteen than there is in two thousand and fourteen but network distribution networks mr ventura i assume in everybody else involved in this case it's a government informant the transportation organization is a government informant the individuals who are doing transport and providing sources but even if you're if the court were to combine the individuals it would still fail because of the fact that they have the facts under application note for nor did the court make specific findings or to the factors that you use to determine if you're a leader or organizer those or he exercises decision making authority the nature of the participation the recruitment of accomplices and the right to a larger share of the proceeds and the degree of participation in planning in this particular e i agree maybe but if your honors look at orders which talk about what's necessary in order to establish the leadership adjustment in quarter they say you've got to give specific facts so that you don't have to sit here you know your honor and say well c c two c she's three there should have been names given to people identified and we could have been in a better position or you would instead we have a broad order just like the order in aware and carter which was rejected by this court and my time has run out and i've reserved i believe  morning the court my name is catherine riley and i represent the united states on appeal as i did below unless the court has questions about the first issue raised in the brief as to the hearsay preston i'll move right to where palin's counsel began and that's with the leadership in handsome and under three v one point one here's i think an important point to start with here is that there is nothing in judge suite sentencing opinion that suggests that he treated the two thousand and twelve and two thousand and thirteen cocaine transactions as separate conspiracies rather if you look to the offense conduct section of judge suites opinion it's very clear that he consider them as one conspiracy and that's how the case was charged and presented a trial he specifically sets forth in that defense conduct section of his opinion six participants in that conspiracy he refers to them a c c one and c c two that's judy gonzales and john f directed to receive the drugs junior ventura and the defendant that's six individuals and he clearly outlines their role in the offense conduct section of his sentencing opinion but your honor he did more than that he also explicitly adopted the p s r not just in the opinion but also at the sentencing hearing and that makes this case very different than some of the cases relied upon by the appellant court or for example where the court concluded that the p s r lacked sufficient facts to understand the basis basis for the imposition of the enhancement here the p s r was extremely detailed both as to the participants in the conspiracy name and of course the defendant again six and i would suggest to the court that the fact that the p s are used to c c one c c to c c three which is a common practice doesn't make it any less clear what the basis of the imposition of the enhancement was particularly when the record is considered as a whole and the fact that judge suite is the judge who presided over the trial in this case and clearly was familiar with the facts is also considered but i think it's important also to look at the detail that's in the p s r and in judge suite sentencing opinion about the defendant's underlying conduct and the faffing he acted as an organizer and a leader of a single conspiracy the sentencing opinion talks about   the first is to know that the standard here on review of course is deferential there's a this is a procedural challenge and the standard is whether judge suite was aware of the statutory requirements in a political ranges and whether anything in the record indicates a misunderstanding i would suggest there's nothing in the record to suggest that here and it's clear he considered it as one conspiracy but it also suggests charter that that's the appropriate conclusion on the merits the fact that there were two different sellers doesn't mean that this isn't a one drug conspiracy it had the same leader the defendant a number of the same participants ms gonzales and mr ventura participated in both the two thousand and twelve and two thousand  thirteen eales and ultimately the same goal there was evidence introduced at trial the goal was to purchase cocaine in colombia and imported to the new york area where a higher profit could be generated a profit that was largely going to flow to the defendant appellant who was going to purchase the majority of the drugs was a tried to the jury as a single conspiracy it was your honor so with that in mind i think this is clearly a one conspiracy case and judge sweet was right to find that and he was further right to find that the defendant acted as a leader organizer both in terms of what he set forth in his findings and that on the merits as well the p s r which was adopted again in the opinion and at the hearing i used phrases like philip who was the leader he provided the money to purchase the cocaine he made arrangements and decisions and that was supported by the evidence at trial there was extensive testimony from cooperate in witnesses as well as recordings and e mails which showed the defendant talking to his coconspirators and directing how they were going to negotiate a price how much they were to buy how they were to make arrangements for transport that's precisely the kind of conduct that falls under the three b one point one standard blow at least guideline calculations your honor it would have reduced his guidelines level of course four levels i don't know precisely what range that would have put him and i think it would have what i would suggest is of course that it could have made a difference if judge sweet had been chosen to depart further down from the guidelines it's difficult to know of course in that different set of circumstances what judge suite would have considered appropriate but i think here the  guidelines and were correctly calculated and handsome and properly applied and then judge suite as he was supposed to do considered all of the other factors and issues raised under thirty five fifty three and set forth by the defense so this substitute challenge to the sentence i would suggest has also found it given the judge suite consider the arguments put forth before him laid out the thirty five fifty three a factors he had considered and then underlying the two counts were slightly different in the sense that there are different elements to the two counts but they both covered the relevant time periods and both deal and that's how they were argued to the jury at trial transaction if you remove the leadership adjustment as we pointed out in our brief it would reduce the guidelines to one fifty one to one eighty eight both of which would be lower than the two eleven secondly your honors to the the indicated that the findings of the sentencing court must be sufficiently specific to permit meaningful appellate review it is not enough for the court to repeat or paraphrase the language of the guard law in and where what they did was they said he sold coke heroin to ten different individuals and after all the judge tried that case same situation here there's no other identification for you other than the putting her to deal with performed by having told her to deal with not to deal with what you write brick and continues to participate in this process but but but the point is the decisions are not being made by them which is