wish to focused this morning on the second issue and that is the court's misapplication of the thirty five we ate factors and a on reasonable sentence that resulted if the court however has any questions with regard to my first argument court in mr witt writes case committed clear air in the second of those two steps in that it failed to articulate in any meaningful manner its assessment of the thirty five fifty three  certainly the district court cited to the thirty five fifty three a factors and listed those factors in summary fashion when it imposed sentence on mr witt right at the end of the sentencing proceeding and the government has correctly cited to those in uded to those in its brief my argument today however is that that's just not enough and i think as i have advised the court in my twenty eight j letter united states versus party tells us for that that was pluto which says that even a case that is within the guidelines range as mr with right what is one that is subject to reasonable this review and then we have to look at next in vs which talk about the fact that a sentencing proceeding is not a scientific endeavor but it is one that requires the court to take a close look at both guideline and i'm guideline fact respectfully certainly judge had and did have a lengthy discussion but that lengthy discussion really gave this court no reasons for the imposition of the sentence and no reasons for his things that he talked about where your honor we have an indication that he thought of but we don't have an indication of what he saw let me give you analogy if i mention the brooks robinson was the greatest there basement where ever play i really haven't explained to you why i haven't explained to you why i hold that position and certainly you may disagree with me you make think that there's another third baseman who is better but you haven't articulated why you think my position is bad and i have articulated to you why my position is correct and in this particular case which had never articulated for this board to assist you in your reasonable in the analysis of why he rejected what were legitimate claims of the thirty five and the only requirement that he give us his understanding of why he selected what he did was not why he rejected what you gave him to understand that distinction and i do understand the sex i don't think we can assume that unless he gives us reasons why he considers that six thirty days when was the best and brooks robinson is best but this court can't assume what he thought i mean even if you look at the written judgment the written judgment in this case gives this court no assistance whatsoever because a matter of fact it's wrong at excerpts of record one hundred five the court says the state the sentence is within a divided range is not greater than twenty four months when we know that was a greater than twenty four months was one hundred eight months so it's wrong he didn't give you any reason this court has to make that reasonableness inquiry on a day novo review you have to be able to see what the judge did and why he did it and we can't tell what judge hadn't did here with regard to the legitimately raised factors i think that party really is just as we can assume that the district court has done it properly there's no checklist that's necessary and i  but that's really what judge hadn't did was just go through a check and he mentioned the factors he mentioned them all but he didn't mention how the specific issues raised by mr witt right during his sentencing hearing and prior to the sentencing hearing in the sentencing memorandum were addressed by the court rejected or accepted by the court and how they factored into the ultimate sentence is one hundred eight months that he determined was appropriate in this  and it was inappropriate because he didn't take that extra step and say to this board this is why this istream characteristics are not sufficient furthermore we ask the court to consider rehabilitation for mr with right submit mathematically accurate it provided information to the court that we as the answer and the government certainly felt it was correct what was accurate what fact you think was not adequately treated what was that wasn't adequate works how he was received in the community what did i just read he'd considered all those he considered them but he didn't say why how and when they factored into his sentencing decision i think there has to be more when it when an individual raises legitimate non frivolous got non guideline issues the court i think is incumbent upon the district court to address those issues in a meaningful in purposeful manner and make decisions and lay out fa why they've been rejected or why they're accepted and how they play into the ultimate determination of the sentence which is sufficient but not greater than necessary which is the district courts responsibility and it is this court's responsibility to determine whether or could we wait until the mandate issues in that case before deciding this case or does it make that much difference you are certainly i believe that carty you know reassess the reliance on cooper absolutely and the other factors in carty but absolutely that is correct but so my my my overall question is do you think we should or shouldn't you know wait per the gallagher relies on the card case in carty district court said i have considered the pre sentence report the defendant's objections and everybody's that is in memorandums the carty court did not say let me talk about thirty five fifty three and why i think that's each individual factor and in this case judge hadn't made what i consider to be a rather impeccable record for your review in terms of why he did what he did and he certainly did take into account that everybody thought boy what right was a great guy that he had been and full time employed and read the letters of support and he had no criminal history none of those things were disputed by anybody in this case and the judge noted i have taken into account your history and characteristics and i've read with interest the number of letters submitted on your behalf and i hope you will keep in mind the content of those letters so that when you have completed your obligations of sentence tell me what we're looking at evidence of record page ninety five and it's quoted in my brief because i think that shows the judge was looking at what everybody thought of him as a great guy and he said i want you to keep that in mind when you get done with your sentence because i don't want you to let those people down because they've come to ba for you including his wife and i believe his minister and one of his children and then that the judge goes on to talk about i gave consideration to a number of statutory considerations and one of the things that i specifically looked at was that you could have gotten up circumstances of the offense because it was quote no small part of this court's consideration because this offense involves hundreds of images of children being abused and cool again an excerpt ninety in this case  right had forty to some of the most vile child pornography movies i've ever seen and i've been doing this for seventeen years he had images of very tiny children being just horrendously sexually abused very long movies as well that he'd been collecting for at least a period of a year and a half and the judge looked at the fact that that offense had continued for a lengthy period of time and continues on it excerpts of record i have to provide you with just punishment and i have to show adequate deterrents and he says the message that this court must stand is it is not permissible to engage in this type of activity he also said i'm going to make a recommendation for you to be in treatment which is required by the statute recommended that he be placed in butner  very careful to make the record because when you when you just look at mr witt right he was a fairly small man who had no criminal history with a supportive wife who was in a courtroom and children and had been employed but then you look at this other part of him where he had collected and viewed for his own pleasure hundreds of images of children and it was i think the judge was looking at those two things and balancing them specifically as he was supposed to under thirty five fifty three eight and so i don't think that that any complaint c think the court said this is a heinous offense you have lots of images that happened over a long period of time i need to show the public that this is not acceptable these images were on the internet and they're out there for everybody to see and you and everybody else need to understand why this is wrong and i think the court did a very good job of setting forth a record for your review if you have any questions on the other issue that was raised that the rearden issue i can certainly answer those otherwise i'll let