it states against mcdonald is our next case for argument today adequately considering the likelihood that mister macdonald will die in prison the court failed to know or give due consideration to mister mcdonald's it is a question but let me tell you what my problem with your argument is that the whole structure of your argument assumes that the older the offender the greater the sentencing disco to which he is entitled why are older offenders entitle to sentencing older the offender the more likely it is that he will die in prison if he gets a perfectly normal sentence and that's an argument for a sentencing discount we also often he offenders are in fighting the sentencing discounts because they're not mature enough and i have a great deal of problem with the proposition that the young are entitled to discounts relative to the old and the older entitle to discounts relative to the you it just doesn't work the only factor in this case is not his age it's also his medical condition and so is the individual his circumstances of each defendant's entire case if it was just that m macdonald was sixty four years old then it wouldn't i'm sorry i believe i was judge hamilton or should i continue oh there it's not just his age it's also his medical condition they are just one of the technical glitches we we try to overcome them but they're inevitable yes things i dropped out for about ten seconds in one case i'm sure the judge saying deep space will banish for ten seconds later we're doing financial good i didn't want anybody to miss anything i know i know it's very important and you're correct but it's not just an age argument and certainly if the argument had not been made in the district court or mister macdonald didn't have these additional some problems we wouldn't be here making the argument this my friend isn't why wasn't it sufficient the district court specifically said i've considered your age and your medical conditions and the individualized difficulties that a term of custody that i'm required to impose will have for you why isn't that sufficient to indicate that the court did consider your arguments about age and medical more than just acknowledge the arguments that a district court needs to go into some kind of death of depth about the specificity specificity that you're raising this court is that has said many times that doesn't present should not be ordered lightly so when we are talking a defendant in a sentence where a defendant will likely die in prison i think more is needed and worse than your the court did say that it should not be ordered lightly much bigger problem and when the court is ordering a sentence that will result in the defendant's death in prison there should be more there should be an individualized determination that his specific circumstances will be accounted for by the court have been accounted for by the court and why a sentence of thirteen years is is more appropriate than a sentence of five years when it comes to a defendant who's likely to die while in prison on a thirteen year sentence so this is that that order a defendant to die in prison are typically reserved for the most incredible crimes or the most horrendous offenders those who commit those horrendous crimes or have a high risk of recidivism or high criminal history mister macdonald had neither of these in this case he had no criminal history and he was he was had such a low risk of recidivism he was on release for five years after the offense was discovered even before he was indicted and committed no other criminal offenses the court should have considered how this this sentence would impact mister macdonald specifically and resulting in death in prison it is the sentence that the court should not order by simply saying i considered your age and medical conditions the cases cited by the government are precisely those cases that require a sentence what essentially be defacto life in prison there are cases that involve production of child pornography not me or just or just abuse and while distribution is a serious offense of course production of the child pornography is much more serious then distribution as congress created tiers of sentencing levels and child pornography pieces the only tears that get you to a life sentence are those where the defendant had two core the district courts within guidelines one hundred and fifty six month sentence was subsequently reasonable it was adequately supported by the district courts reasoning and their reasoning was fully consistent  videos of child pornography among that collection were videos of happy learners and babies being raped by adult men it was a serious  defendant through his conduct empirically demonstrated that he had a compulsive urge to seek out sexual contact with young children he demonstrated that by photographing the children of his neighbors he also demonstrated that by making statements where he described coming up with a ruse that allowed him to get a loan with the babies of friends under the cover of changing diapers within guideline sentence is perfectly reasonable to punish this conduct and to deter similar conduct defendant has argued that his age warrants a lesser sentence but defendant's own conduct undermines the argument defended committed this offense at the age of fifty eight years old it's a type of offense child pornography possession and transportation he could commit at any age so long as he has access to internet defendant's own conduct shows that sex offenses are not like violent crimes for firearm offenses when it comes to recidivism rather recidivism does not drop with a huge for sex offenders the nd circuit made that observation in the hayes case which is cited in the government's free defendants argues that this amounts to a de facto life sentence the government does not conceive that's the case but even if it were the sentence would still be entitled to a presumption a reasonable illness because it's  indications that he would have found it any time during those five years he did go to treatment during that time and addressed those compulsive urges this is a serious offense i am not trying to get away from the facts of this offense  pled guilty and admitted to them however it is not the most serious offense that warrants a sentence of life of prayer in prison or mister macdonald to die in prison for his offense unless this court has further questions again