raising procedural errors on appeal first is that the district court in correctly applied the enhancement for possessing the firearm in connection with another felony specifically traffic found that mr sanchez possessed the firearm in connection with drug trafficking so really the thirty five fifty three factor that she pointed to was the factor  soon was that he had two prior convictions for drug trafficking however that second findings are actually actually had only one prior conviction for drug trafficking so the court remark close case we believe that that factual mistake the court made regarding his prior convictions is enough to put the case over the absent focusing though on her explanation that it is a close  connection with another felony she made that finding addressing mr sanchez's request for a variance based on his criminal history being overstated but the comment that was made she did discuss four levels i believe that comment was a misstatement that she should've said six levels that what we were arguing was that the base of francis level was also an overstatement because his prior conviction was m the criminal history overstatement argument when it went back to clarify that that prior conviction it was not a traffic jam but the court really never went back and corrected the record with respect to you record she went on to say i did find that the four level enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense applies under the guidelines under reading the transcript as a whole the primary justification for the court statement that he would give the same sentence under the thirty five fifty three actors was that this was a distributed amount of cocaine but that was not your primary justification and i believe as your honest i pointed  judge made a very lengthy and detailed and exhausted explanation regarding the three hundred fifty three eight factors she talked about the planet's history and characteristics in his criminal history beginning when he was old she went there every single conviction he had she went through the fact that he was violated here and successfully discharged in every single case that he had and she really focused on the seriousness of the offense when discussing the thirty five fifty three factors she of literally the serial number excuse me in the same pocket as three individual bags of cocaine she talked about how this situation could have gone so wrong for not only the defendant but also the police officers that were there to help  really what she focused on when she made the statement that she would impose the same sentence regardless of whether she was wrong about the enhanced meant undertook a two point one b six and let me wrong about whether the defendant possessed the firearm in connection with another film so yes she said distribution of mouth that was not the primary justification and the air i hear is harmless irrespective of that statement because he referred back and actually she said for much of the reasons i stated when she was making enhancement for possession of a firearm and further into of a felony applied she relied on the fact that she had two prior convictions she subsequently corrected the record that he only had one situation so i think that given all of those factors we would be in a much different place had that enhanced not applied so that i think should be considered i'm not looking at whether any error that occurred was level over reflecting the seriousness of the offense in the court that i do believe consistent with the sensing commission that there is an increased risk posed by individuals who have a certain type of prior conviction not have discretion in viewing those the nature of the prior in your case the drug offense but i do still think that the four levels is appropriate appropriately applied in your case and i do think that it's not a basis for i don't think it's a basis for a