turkey mexico let me begin with the question that the district court posed re sentencing and this matter and that was on what basis do i really sentence disregarding this mandate and the answer is that there was no basis on which the district court could read sentence mr dutch in just regard the dutch one mandate st off that mandate was clear the st dutch panel reversed the district  didn't why didn't the prosecution talk about the mandate the prosecution did talk about the mandate the problem here that they didn't use the word magic word  he did use the word at the end of the sentencing and that was it it came as no surprise at that point the judge soft as he says i understand mr crazy even making the argument the entire time that the district court was bound by this court's decision and dutch  to impose an a t g sentence that there was no them since the court could impose on remain and that was not the one that was dictated i believe he said by this court and dutch one so it was clear from the beginning that the government argued that the district court because of dutch one had no liberty to impose a sentence other than the one that dutch one contemplated and and mandated in fact favor of a general remit so judges argument was that everything again remember that's fair game but a general green man is not an escape hatch it's not intended to allow the district court to evade it result on appeal that it didn't agree with and it doesn't obliterate the law of the case that has been laid out in the court's opinion what the general remember does is allow a district court to hear on really and issues that are not foreclosed by the court's mandate even if they have been raised before on appeal so less they dutch on remand had wanted to raise an issue about the guideline calculation or something about restitution or for which or he  done that and it would have been proper for the district court to entertain those arguments on remand even though dutch emigres them before an appeal but what the district court can do and what the general remand doesn't allow is for a district court to just regard this cour list on appeal so the district court then has its own error to correct that was an issue in the appeal but there is no exception to the mandate rule at the rd exception or anywhere else that would allow a district court to disregard the holding of the court of appeal on the issue of reversal to do that would entirely invert the judicial order there's no exception that allows a district court to  direction that this goes our system quite widely does not allow a cape to ricochet back and forth between the trial court and the court of appeals and tell everybody finally agrees on the result or until it helen finally draw receptive panel so none of the acceptance of the mandate rule apply here in the court should not create an exception that it will allow a district court to nd guess this court's holding on appeal the district court said that it's thought it had authority to do what it was doing because this argument had not been fully developed at the initial sentance it didn't what do we do with that it did say that but that's irrelevant to whether the district court is bound by the mandate of this court it's not the case that a district court have to not only pass upon but fully develop an argument before the court of appeals may that that had been the primary issue before her the st time whether she believed that this court exhaustively or so merrily disposed of the aiding and abetting argument what is clear is that this court did just th aiding and abetting argument by explicitly rejecting it and that created no room for the district court to accept the exception that precise argument again on remand who would have to fully develop this argument that is the anything about incarceration the bank robberies just straight up who would have to bully develop that at the initial sentencing would that be the government with the responsibility to prove up an enhancement are with that being the defendant the government's responsibility to prove the enhancement by a preponderance of the evidence if mr dutch believed that that preponderance standard could not be met because of the possibility that then i would know that the aiding and abetting argument was fully fleshed out in fact it was the focus of of the appeal it was a focus of his answer brief it was a focus of our reply brief it was a focus of oral argument that issue was fleshed out there was nothing new in front of the district court in fact judge vaska said on the record i'm hard pressed to see that there's anything new being argued here but it's not a requirement though for the district court to be bound by it's not a requirement for this court to explain in great to hear in great detail why it has rejected a defendant argument before it's rejection of that now turning to the mandate that should issue in this appeal the general mandate rule is just a presumption the court can limit its mandate in any way to these i would ask the court to remain here with explicit instructions that the district court is to impose an atheist sentence hungry man and that it not consider any other issue mr dutch has had plentiful opportunities to raise any issue that he sees fit and it's time to ensure that this case comes to a close do you have any cases where we have been that specific in directing the district court exactly have in in the west case the district this court re mandated and told the district court to impose a sentence in the gile a range of i think it was twenty seven to thirty three months  certainly there are other cases in which the court has instructed the district court just to do something ministerial essentially on henri man not to instruct him not to do anything else recently in the solid x case just last month the court explained that that mandate essentially left the district court with only mr ial tasks to complete and so it wasn't to entertain new issues so that wouldn't be that kind of mandate would not be out of step with the court's practice especially in a case like this where the district court has had difficulty or small the salt lake case is a civil case and i holding in that case was that when we look at the mandate rule we look at the entire opinion and we read the mandate in the context of the entire opinion so in our case if you're going to apply seven civil case to a criminal case which is man do we have any thing in our prior ruling that when educate us as to what was intended by our mandate yes you can look statements by the court there was no room for the district court to go back and impose a sentence other than under the a c c a that this court had already held governed the case and i would respectfully submit that this place is the easiest state that this battle will consider at the map today than this week because the government has an obligation to prove by allow the court to correct and i think that the  we have proved it here because we have evidence that he pled guilty to three bankrupt that's them oh no no this isn't aiding and abetting me that's all it is and that's where you come back and challenge the government argued is the same as the argument that he and his client presented on appeal the st time and that this court has already disposed of and i'm content to rely on our prior briefing and whatever no no i'm not aware of any mandate exception to that this court that listed the mandate rule exceptions in and west and said in that case that they were new law new facts and the need to correct an error made in the priory sentencing so not the court not the court of appeal there but the sentencing error the original error and it said that if the district court and west had not identified one of those exception then there was no way to get around the mandate so no west implied that those are the only exceptions but even if there were even if it were not exhaustive list the court has never recognized an exception that would allow a district court to