independent grounds for relief but all three relate to the overarching problem of the court exclusively focusing on ms pennington's offense to the exclusion of everything else i'm going to talk about the  under twenty five fifty three if he reaches the same sentence then we of course would not have a complaint at that time but in terms of the procedural errors to he did make  relied on that information and he was comparing he had this really offense only comparison of miss pennington and mr dotson and then mr miss pennington side he was considering a two year period of drug dealing that he one thing and that is the number of deals to the undercover officer in this case as the undercover officers for his field and doesn't even acknowledge that there would be other factors that he would need to compare to have a true comparison between the defendants now in both our brief and the government's proof there's been some discussion of kind of making that comparison that didn't happen but the real procedural error here is that the court did not attempt so you know again they really weren't similarly situated this is an apples to oranges problem but the judge didn't i didn't try to make that finding  you i think you have to go beyond culpability your honor i mean certainly we have to figure culpability because he took such a narrow view of culpability as meaning number of deals to the undercover officer described in the pre sentence report but he did not acknowledge the possibility of criminal history difference to of life circumstance difference of all the other things that go into a sentencing decision to decide whether or not there similarly situated wasn't so it sentencing you know he got time served and so you know just as an initial matter that time service sentence what he happened to serve as a period of a pretrial detention it's hard to extrapolate from to eight months were sufficient he would accept the defense argument that there wouldn't be any purpose to continued incarceration for him and here there's also this third issue although again in the  the third issue of of the judge calling this particular an inaccurate historian in really the inaccurate information there is what that means i mean that that's of course an opinion as the government has pointed know having five kids and two of them are disabled and having and in significant criminal history she had you know what can only be described as really appalling life circumstances but the judge was able to say you know you've had a difficult upbringing but you're not necessarily reliable the story and so i'm going to go straight to this comparison of you with mr dotson who i consider let's culpable based solely on the number of deals with the undercover officer and so that cannot raise or complains of that actually impacted her sentence in a material way these issues she raises and the judge followed the corrections and procedure did not bear certainly did not plainly err in the sense of procedure to employ opportunity to make their arguments they don't dispute that consider the sentencing arguments that's clear from the record and he made observations about the various factors thirty five fifty three a factors those very factors that the defense or the appellant says that he didn't consider her  or her children or her past history her difficulties growing up i considered those and weighing and imposing it but chose instead but part of that thirty five fifty three i think consideration and his is imposing that sentence let's look at the context of what what he was dealing with here they were asking for a sentence of mere probation which was far exceeding although the guidelines and explaining why he was not going to agree with us on thi stay out pending the appeal and so she's not in custody i if you do are in various places around i i'm afraid i don't know where the kids are but actually that was one of the judges peterson's points during sentencing was while she's doing these various transactions involving seven transactions with an undercover officer dealing thrust there was little concern about where her children were what what was going on with their children at the time that it was an observation by the judge it was that triggers play in their review correct they'd we given given that to the challenge here is to what the judge did instead after the parties had been heard we don't expect people to raise objections or take the exceptions after that if they felt there was a incorrect fact stated by the judge they had the opportunity to try to brace that that there was no such thing as there was there was no objections to argument is there's no air period if it does whether it's playing or otherwise it is not it was not there and what the judge did at sentencing hearing what do you make of the judge's statement that it was pennington is supporting his comments or that to that effect in the briefing notes at least a half a dozen examples where she was she was incorrect and problems made misrepresentations misstatements about her own past and her history number one hundred she says she has never refused she didn't know recall what medication she did and i think they're in her youth or more currently when she was taking medications she claimed that he was hospitalized at the age of twenty but there were no hospital records corroborating that she had no memory of actually she claims she had no memory of actually or knowingly using cocaine yet she tested positive when she was on pretrial release she there were discrepancies in her claim that she in the p s are her claim that she attended m e t c technical college no record she was ever a student there contradictory information about her employment so there's there's a plethora of information that she is not accurate in terms of her history so there was a basis for a judge to make a comment such as that no three of your brief talks about judge peterson perhaps misreading the date as october fourteenth two thousand and fifteen the defen argument here is that at that section of the transcript page fifteen to sixteen it wasn't just a misreading of the day you've got peterson saying as early as october two thousand and fourteen sustained period of time of almost two years all of october fourteenth and long period of drug dealing it sounds like more than a misreading of a date like at least in his mind at the time he's pronouncing sentencing he's thinking it's truly years and then again i'm only speculating as to where he got the fourteen and because the fourteen october fourteenth was twenty fifteen where it came from i'm only speculating as to that but my point cases show the defendant dealt an ounce of cocaine every week for this period of time he didn't do those kind of calculations his point is only point that was important here the material point that he was making was that she engaged in an extended period time there were some transactions completed and attempted unlocking the transactions and it was an ex if he used the words a number of times extended period of time even said even if you were continuously doing this even if this wasn't continuously going on this was an extended period of time in comparison to such as mrs mr dotson who was only on one occasion a delivery boy and that was his point that she she maintained her involvement in the offense over a number of oh not only a number of occasions number of times the number of different substances the m d m the suspected m d m a cocaine that cocaine base attempt transaction and her offer on another occasion to the undercover officer to supply cocaine sixteen of the transcript as anything other than just an error by the by the judge corrected later in the written explanation but neither side spoke up to correct the judge right prior record of armed robbery when in fact it was simple robbery without without having been armed and this court reversed the denial of relief and ordered a new sentence but there are big government has an obligation to try to correct those kinds of factual errors by judges as well and seems to be sure it is it in neck and neck a set that would make a difference whether it was a simple robbery or an armed robbery they're considered considered differently a year of drug dealing versus two judge in his explanation went beyond writing he's entitled to do that but he's needs to get the facts right that's correct but i'm saying most factor collateral to his point that it was an extended period of time and he did correct them in the statement of