way we usually administer the plan our role the purpose of having a plan or a standard as a grounds for objection is brought to the judge's attention so that the judge can correct it on the and in real time and i'm wondering in this kind of situation does the request may i speak put the judge on notice of the nature of the claim that's being made and i appreciate your bringing to our attention the supreme court's decision in holding hernandez which of course is germane but one thing i noted in that decision is the way the court described the preservation there is in terms of whether the claim was brought to the court's attention and the court at one point said that in the way that the error was communicated thereby telling the judge that the sentence was too long the court said that the defense they're there by quote has thereby  my understanding is that the government points to the distinction in the language between the two roles only in the context of arguing that the air isn't plain in other words that the government is not arguing with you just focus on the difference  back to prior sessions with the district judge and quote what you say is shows that he would not have an open mind on remand but why argument in our beliefs and what the argument is here is that the judge made clear that he was unable to put aside his already determined idea of the sentence when he after allowing a post sentencing allocation to consider the sentence and made an acceptance of responsibility adjustment and his guidelines consolation i think and i don't think he's going to simply a change in view or a disagreement between the parties in the court i think they go to the question of whether the district court so the six months is certainly the end of that period certainly coming up very quickly but i don't know the precise date one of the consequences of this for the court what i error in waiting until the district court st announced the sentence to have a back and forth that you ultimately rely on or allowing for that back and forth beforehand you don't sure so if you turn to the trial transcript looking at page eight at the bottom of that where mr abney says may say something and you look down literally six lines that are  request which the court on notice to the basis of law and also the nature of his sentence that he was requesting which necessarily would have been one that was no longer necessary to address each of those understand that a defendant in that circumstance was making the argument here the nature of what mr abney requested wasn't enough to put either his counsel or but district court on notice the fact that what he was raising wasn't and then so what you think is not obvious is that you think well i was given here ultimately was an opportunity to allocate it but it was just on after the imposition of sentence that on that it seems to me if if you have to give an opportunity to allocute it has to be one that's meaningful in that the judge actually takes into consideration the argument the statement that's being made in the context of deciding what but without any suggestion or a reason to get the defendant or an indication or anybody an occasion that a statement that's being made in fact is being taken into account in determining what the family says and what happened for this case within the kind of cases under kongs three and four where the district court does not have to wonder about what happened on the appearance of fairness because a point was given an opportunity to speak i'm looking to the think i have any entitlement to speak i'm not aware that i do but he'd be great if you'd let me talk for a nd i mean suppose i actually take it up further and just say because i'd just like to express  my sorrow to the victims of the crime say something like that and at that point the district court doesn't have any reason to think that not letting the person speak is an to think that not doing it might be an error and holding on and as everybody knew it was claimed to be an error because the issue was whether the sentence was too long and the defense was making the argument that the sentence to wrong for the following reasons and at that point you the court knows well someone's telling me that if i don't do i don't grant that this would be wrong but in our case i don't know that the judge was put on notice that this should fall outside of that ordinarily rule ordinarily is that you know stating what you want to see not and share i think it is there's no reason why it wouldn't be enough to ask more of a little complicated here because it i just wanted to say again but i think i think asking more of a criminal defendant would be putting a substantial burden on him i think this was quite analogous to holden hernandez in that there you know the defendant as