in a sentence of the amount was true in a case like miller in case like the case we're dealing with the sentencing judge has not only a right but i'm obligation to exercise that discretion and that he can or can't hear in response to this argument is how are we supposed to understand what the court has done in miller in saying that it's unconstitutional to have mandatory life sentence without parole for and it is that how i should understand it in other words when the court held that it's unconstitutional to impose such a sentence for someone eighteen and under they were not thereby also saying it is constitutional to have around one thousand or twenty  e i think that they did not say that it was constitutional they said that they were dreaming of mine at eighteen and really did not address the question who are the issues that we are presenting here in  on the line is inherently an easy ruling d cases of this nature where there is no difference between the eighteen and twenty year old and there's no evidence to present it contradicts this particular supposition so such a didn't where is the idea that before you consent to a life term you at least have to have made that finding and then decide whether in light of that finding a life sentence is still warranted i would say that that is true and la carte good morning don a clock card for the government in may it please the court as judge cellier pointed out this court obviously has a duty to follow the supreme court and not to follow science it's really for the supreme court to decide in some future case whether intervening scientific studies justify shifting the line drawn in miller from age eighteen hang your hats on the age factor you don't need to await for the outcome in jones and you don't need to address whether the discretionary nature of the sentence in this case is  valves posed miller the money and the government has no reputation of it that shows that a twenty year old is functionally identical to an eighteen year old i don't really understand why it would make sense though a lower court to conclude that miller was never looked at any of that evidence has already pre determined the th amendment challenge dale and it would seem like one reading of the logic of miller would be that in the face of evidence that strong would be no reason not to  right way to understand miller is that the science was not determinative there yes i mean i think you did the right way to understand miller is that the court threw consistent with its prior decisions a hard and fast line addressed to the supreme court and not to a lower court it would represent a radical departure from existing supreme court jurisprudence which dress that hard and fast line not based on science so if there a reason based on science to depart from the line that is quintessentially a decision for the supreme court if i could make it if i didn't agree with you on that point about starting to sizes and how to understand that do you have an argument about the record in this case with respect to the science as to why this would be a court case so you used to shift the line yes i do have a  response to that because if you look at the judge's sentencing ruling what you'll see is that the judge here took into account the relative youth of the defendant mr gonzales the judge also specifically took into account the whole defense contention about adolescent brain development etc the judge took into account variety of other mitigating factors and trust the intention about what miller type thing might suggest would be necessary so i guess my question maybe i didn't put it right with respect to the evidence as to the science in this case and the record as to the science do you have any argument to make this record is not mission to support the kind of economic pain that is being brought even if under miller it would be appropriate for a lower court with  a supreme court decision based on intervening science should be done in a case where the science is well presented in the district court and here the mere attachment of these attachments to the defense sentencing memo coupled with only very brief defense arguments on point at sentencing should not be enough to create you know a real platform for you know was a question raised concerning well putting aside the th amendment arguments how should we look at this through the prism of reasonable this and so the court has no questions further one would be that although that the rubric given the age of the defendant and the blame with that in terms of the nature of the thing that in order for it to be a defensi account of how that makes sense given the likelihood that people in chains given how young the person is and how long they're going to be in close range that it would make sense if you going to give that one sentence to address very issue in the failure to do so might not be reasonable well that's an interesting point which wasn't raised at the sentencing by the defense attorney either at the during the course of the cannot satisfy the plain error standard because there is no case law was ever that supports that proposition and he cannot show that were the case for man that he would likely get a different result