the court can address the defense medication instead it focused pretty much exclusively on the advisory guideline range on and said that as far as it could determine the advisory guideline  not under any obligation to to actually go through each and every one of the thirty five fifty three factors however the court is i believe obligated to address those thirty five fifty to fifty three factors that the defense has raised has presented to whether judge phillips took it into account that's the problem when the court did not give the full explanation did not give any did not make any mention of the the arguments and once she w get practical from this campaign you know i was safe he said the judge was sleeping you could say the judge didn't consider we i had we have to assume the judge heard it but what the judge didn't do is the judge didn't buy it in the way that either you or defense counsel you know argued it and so it's you know i think you know i mean i sat and sentenced a lot of people and it doesn't mean that you didn't that you didn't hear it because you don't construe it in the same light that th parties would like you to whether at the the government or you know or the defense counsel it doesn't mean you didn't care and consider it here i know these are the factors i heard what you said but this is the sentence that i think is appropriate and i'm not giving you what you you presented them to me and balanced against these other thirty six thirty five fifty three factors that i've considered i am now going to impose the sense that we would have an issue here that would absolutely have been sufficient if you just said an extra census but the fact is she made no mention of it she goes through she goes through it says i'm moving to the thirty five to three factors now this is my analysis under thirty five thirty three a and she doesn't discuss all the history  make a record and this for example richardson from the sixth circuit were to stand it raises a particular argument in seeking a lower sentence the record must reflect both that the district judge consider the defense argument and that the judge explain the basis for rejecting to the aide to the injured motorists not only once but twice and with you know you are thirty so then that what you're concerned about is she talks about it but she doesn't then explain in the context of going on splitting with the deterrents and the disparate treatment factors that she didn't talk about she didn't somehow come back and say and he's out way or whatever is that your point the seriously injured address then there's also a discussion he's got that's a fairly significant criminal history and isn't it inherent in that that five virtue of the fact that he didn't get what you're asking for that reentry so i believe does relate to the offense and that's another reason why perhaps the judge should have given some i guess a i guess it relates in the same way that your priors were might you know what you do when you're here that's bad and what you do when you're here that's good that's  issues you're raising so you know we'll see whether you're a good predictor of with the him back if they reach it who knows absolutely so it may be that we won't have the ultimate warrior in the news and we certainly understand that understood the defendant's argument in this case both as being a request for downward departure or adjustment of the guideline part of the first analysis as well as the thirty five fifty three a factor in terms of the history characteristics of the defendant in fact that's what the district court actually said she recognize it as such when you look at the course of what the district court did excerpt of record thirty and thirty one and acknowledge the defendant's argument as a potential thirty five fifty three a factor then went on to state its belief that the guidelines in the the recommended guideline sentence in this case corresponded with what was reasonable under most of these factors so how would that be true in the case of the usual factor good samaritan act that was and perform here was hardly anticipated by the sentencing commission the flu it's an act committed in the course of an illegal reentry of the fellow who goes off and helps an injured motorist the how's that how would you articulate that that's covered  the the other aggravating factors but when you look at what the court did the court acknowledged the good samaritan acknowledges other aggravating factors and ultimately came out in the sentence but my question the premise of my question is that because you say we don't necessarily have to hold that may be true of a clear cut but if you assume that the and i'm just assuming i'm not predicting that the rule is that when you have a specific  if you an ad hoc factor or a vent here is this one here is that the court can't just acknowledge that it's been raised but also has door to your life how and why she has decided  not to give her what weight she says if any she's decided to give it in the balance i'm still not hearing from your peculation how we can say on this transcript that that the standard would be  panel makes the holding that there has to be an explicit discussion of why i don't think that this record has got i think that the implicit record here is fairly strong as to what the court did and thus far the decision court has issued does far and even the cunningham decision rest and relied upon by the defense does not require some sort of explicit explanation just implicit discussions or it particularly for arguments that in the grand scheme of things are very anything close to implicit then you would argue with that i think so i don't think there's any way that you know on what she said what the district court said here that she actually went through in full simply explain why it didn't matter but i think that it's clear from the way in which she  we you know if we were to predict and we get it right and you know we said that you know only go ahead and do it now i don't know why would that really end it from the standpoint that when someone's doing seventy nine so you have people that are doing you know one hundred twenty months or you  know to have a long time to do you know my machiavellian side says that wires are going to continue to litigate that if you have a new case that comes out you're going to say how that would benefit your client and many you know and many times appropriately so in so time we have a whole other round of briefing anyway so you know from the government's perspective and you know from everyone's perspective i don't know with you know guessing how something is going to do is really going to ultimately save anyone any time and because you know if i were defense counsel i still you know if someone had elevate the sentence i would still have to somehow try to see why they would get the benefit of that and kill the court said otherwise right now i mean this court again would be well within of the court said you have to prove to me either above or below the guideline i'm going to treat the guidelines as a presumptive range that didn't happen here and in carty the court simply said i'm adopting the vs are going to go with the low end and here the court went