get it to you speculation in determining their sentences judicial integrity is undermined and defendants won't get the opportunity to put that speculation to the test through the adversarial principally relied on speculation in determining its sentence nd the sentence was substantively on reasonable because the court failed to adequately consider mr corrals mental health and his rehabilitation in determining a sentence people knew that you had your criminal history and that you had a gun they would avoid you three blocks away now this st speculative statement about the community's perception of mr geraldo and the perception that it's dangerous has no basis in the record certainly the district court is permitted to make a conclusion based on record evidence that mr her relative threat to the community but that inclusion is only allowed if it is based off of the fact in the record but no such fact exists in this case in fact the record actually supports the opposite conclusion that mr her words are not a danger to his community are two different occasions the magistrate judge judge jackson in this case found that mr pearl was not a threat to the but hey you've got a really bad criminal history and the kind of thing we're all the time from district judge is what makes this different in this case what makes it different despite the fact that mr burrell has a criminal history is that he went above and beyond to voluntarily rehabilitate himself and this is a mitigating factor that is actually quite substantial in this case the magistrate judge even found mr geraldo had quote put his affairs in order and had done extremely well on supervision and the fact of the matter is that when mr rel voluntarily and we had military to consult for the sixteen month period that he was out of custody this goes to show that he had add that he had got beyond the point of being a danger to the actually about mr hero's overall danger the threats the community and even a commentary on his likelihood to recede a bit in terms of speculating about whether it be walking down the street again with a gun and whether or not he would use that gun in  similar fashion here and as we've seen in that in united states steps this court has determined that speculation like that without any record support is an error and it is a plain error that in this case the commentary about the community's perception of mr her out is similar to that in united states where there is no record support for such a conclusion and that leads to the nd instance of speculation in this case and that's when a district court judge said that the quad cities and experienced extraordinary gun violence over the last decade now just like the st comic in this case this nd instance of speculation has no record support whatsoever that the government in its argument argue that this gun violence was an increasing problem in the five cities however it paled to provide any evidence on the record to support that conclusion something it certainly could have done so even assuming that that was a statement that was not based on at  record in this particular defendant's case how do we how do we know whoa whoa do we discern whether that's a principal reason for the decision in the district or gives a number of reasons for a factors the judge marilyn stated something along the lines of i've considered that there could be thirty eight factors i've considered his mental health i consider his characteristics that in just a position to the length of carry on this speculation would show that this was the principle basis rather it is just one of many reasons for this judge to come to this conclusion now this test is laid out once again in the united states because jokes about the principle basis and it's true that courts do not have to go into a long explanation of these factors but in order to determine if there was a plain error based on this procedural error we have to see how much time was spent talking about these other factors and here thompson about post since the browser mental l and his rehabilitation all of this evidence was never refuted by the government and again it goes to show how much there are mitigating factors in this case if the ever were a case where a dam or variance was justified based on this mitigating evidence this case was that kind of how do we when we're looking at the substance of reasonableness it's all it's a hard assessment  for for the court of appeals to make and you look at the record and in you see the kinds of evidence that you're describing that you also see a concern that a concern expressed by the district court about the dangerous nature of the offense that solves how how are we to sort of wouldn't we be stepping in and doing the district court's job of weighing which is more important  which would weigh more heavily if we were to accept your argument i don't think this court would be stepping over into the issues at the district court if you were to accept that this is a substantively unreasonable sentence and the reason for that is that although the court talks about the dangerousness of this offense that directly leads d into whether or not we're seeking to target the kind of behavior in the future or whether the defendant is a threat to the community and in united states be peppered the supreme court found that things like rehabilitation affect every single one of those kinds of determinations that deterrence about the danger to the community and about the dangerousness of the offense and when a district court fails to adequately consider rehabilitation in the thank you your honor good afternoon will ripley on behalf of the government please the court in this case d the district court committed no where or not when is referenced that the quad cities the community in which it was sitting has experienced extraordinary gun violence over the last the clear and where it employed a rhetorical device to further describe the serious an part of the beginning of the court describing the various factors that it was that are including of course the seriousness of the offense described that the offense as one in its aggravated form including shots fired and eluding from the police that high speed and placing specific people in the community in danger after that statement placing specific people in the community in danger  very next sentence is the one referencing the extraordinary gun violence and two sentences after that is the court stating that if people knew that you had your criminal history and that you had a gun they d would avoid you three blocks away again it was simply the district court not engaging in speculation or any sort of guessing as to what might happen in the future or anything like that it was simply the maybe i my point is simply that it was just the way that the district court was describing why as it sat there and looked at the record things actually in the record the offense and at issue the one about the quad cities in general and that decade long increase of gun violence and that concerned that that's a different type of statement than the one you called a rhetorical device to sort of s the district court's impression of the defendant himself yes i think the two statements are different your honor i would agree with that and so why isn't it an error to rely on sort of a general statistic for which there is least nothing in this particular record and i think the parties agree on that why isn't why is it that at least at the you know out of the gate or because i don't believe that it was  here our position is that this one was and of course generally relying on facts not in the record certainly can be error i'm not suggesting that of course but i think here again when you consider that this sentence came immediately after the district court describing the aggravated nature of this that shots were fired at an occupied vehicle etc and that the end of the sentence when the whole sentence read the quad cities experience extraordinary gun violence over the last decade and this is part of it in other words this d is an extraordinarily violent offense that is i think the way in which this sentence was utilized and for that reason you're i don't believe it was fair but certainly if the court disagrees and finds that it was error then yes we are on to the next stage which is that it still doesn't require reversal and remand because there's district which includes the quad cities for approximately thirteen years i suppose it would be at the time of sentencing last maybe around twelve but certainly in excess of a decade and quite frankly that's probably why he used the phrase the last decade in this sentence is that it did kind of refer to what he has seen and that certainly would not be fair and i believe a reference said in our brief in a footnote after there's a there's a four word sentence in between the two contested sentences that sentences this is right down just kind of indicating that it's a populated area referring to the alluding and why that would be a dangerous  that was a dangerous part of the offense conduct but you wanted to respond to you with it coming also within the totality of the judge's description of why this was a serious offense which of course the nature and circumstances of the offense clearly one of the factors and sometimes it can be a driving factor behind sentencing and there's nothing erroneous about that it came back to back essentially with the exception of the downtown reference and because of that if it was hyperbolic your honor again i just don't see it as a roni yes because it is part and parcel with the court's description of the seriousness of this particular  not speculative of what mr harold might do in the future not speculative of what mr harold may have done in the past that isn't captured in either the p s r or or or some other part of the record like like the stokes case  and so i just don't think it was erroneous but again if the court disagrees and finds that there was error here the government's position is that there's just there's just not a showing on this record that this affected mr carroll substantial rights which does dovetail i would agree with counsel that that then starts to the analysis i suppose parallels the nd overall issue in the case which is substantive reasonable nest of the sentence and with the presumption of reasonableness the comes with a guideline sentence with the discretion course afforded the district court there was just no error here mr harrell claims of the district court didn't adequately consider the various mitigating factors that the record doesn't support that the district court explicitly stated it considered all the mitigating factors and in fact with respect to those mental health considerations work history post defense rehabilitation none of which is actually needed by the government  explicit detail recitation of things it would also point out again that given the nature of this offense the fact that shots were fired at a vehicle occupied by two women the fact struck the damage to the vehicle from a bullet this brief and again here today the government and the district court judge relied on his own personally and while that may be the natural thing to do for a judge the district court judge in this case personal experience is not always aligned objective reality and personal experience is not evidence for our adversarial process we require that evidence be admitted and put to the test and that district court judges make their sentencing determination based on