similarities and here there there seems to be this almost balancing of on one side for your client the prior record in the boasts on the other side from mr moore the guns and the amount of methamphetamine involved oftentimes we see things like guns and amounts of methamphetamine is being distinguishing characteristics rather than similar characteristics between two defendants my question though goes to how does that make it outside of the discretion that the just a court would have how does the equating we're balancing the church peterson was doing here here between those two sides of the teeter totter how does that make it outside the discretion that he had to sentence i don't think it's outside the discretion he joins can always say that individual factors militates words leniency and others he thinks are aggravating what our claim is that the judge misunderstood or misapprehended the fact that they needed to peg the sentence for more and you can look at the transcript especially out at the appendix nineteen of the father you know he says i don't see anything that would greatly  warrant this you know a greatly warranted disparity here something in your back me could we pop up to the top of that page for just a minute if you just as i do read this transcript the judge begins bike as when he moves to the individual circumstances just as judge brennan just said i think he sees some things on the negative side of the ledger for for becky and she sees some things on the negative side of the ledger for more but the end of the day as he says on the i believe it's the next page on page twenty he says i think you both are kind of in this together so you know one for all for one kind of situation he makes a discretionary call that in this particular instance even though the guidelines advise different ranges they should get the same sentence which by the way is below her guideline range practice below her guideline range but the judge is pegging it towards more sentence exactly on more sentence and it's ignoring the judges ignoring her of cooperation which you know that significantly lower guidelines but three years ignoring all  other aggravating factors why do you characterize it as norrie versus just you know there are pluses for her pluses for him minuses minuses but he thinks when you at the end of the day the same sentence the sixty six month sentence is the right one for both of them i don't see the nori well i would say your honor that of prior pot possession a prior you know four grams of marijuana sale twenty years ago and fifteen years ago those are rarely balanced off against possession of stolen firearms especially in that number loaded pistols next to drugs that are not used i know it's not a common sentence but it that the question is is it one within the scope of his discretion and i think that he could arrive at sixty six months but the question is for this court is where did the judge pigott peg it wrong to lead to more if you look at that above all other factors and that's that's really you where the court makes a statement a district court isn't titled if it wishes to apply the rule against on warrant to disparities to codefendants sentences but it cites this stat i'm case does that did that give judge peterson the ability to do this pegging to more i don't think so i think two things one solomon has to be read to by the claim that was raised there solomon wanted to have the same sentence  if there could be a substantively unreasonable below guideline sentence and there in solomon the court is saying you can look at this we can look at how the other co defendants were treated or find substantively a reasonable but that's a much different claim than what we have here if judge  chain had decided look i thought you know i see a lot of dissimilarities between you and byrd on it but i got it's you parity and so i'm going to give you fifty four months the government would have a right claim to say you can't do that or i got to put you down if arness and eighteen months it's a fact of the judge here mistakenly thought disparity and the need to avoid disparity is going to go and i'm going to put sixty six months there have the judge come out in sixty three months it's well within usually get around the same sentence the judge doesn't come in a blank slate he has already seen the crime thought about them ounce thought about the appropriate sentence but pepper and all demanded to be an individualized assessment not that the judge ignored the guidelines he said if we were fetishizing over the guidelines and go and seems like the same crime i'm going to give the same time you have to weigh all of those individual factors and here the judge was simply mistaken about how much your honour's although it's presented as an argument for procedural error the defendant's challenge really attacks the district court sentencing discretion in this case and it torts the analysis to get there a fair review of the record reveals there's no procedural error in this case and a district court sentences procedurally sound thoughtfully crafted and well reasoned there is no dispute procedurally which is the challenge here that the court rectally calculated the guidelines in this case which as your honour's know in and of themselves are intended to mitigate disparity it also provides a fair opportunity for argument and considered the necessary three thousand five hundred and fifty three dollars a factors such as punishment specifically turns a need to protect the public and s as much before ultimately issued a sentence that was thirty one months below of the guidelines and i would note that that's noteworthy under the case law and what certain cases such as state them teach us is that in this case the ide line sent actually called for something that was thirty one months below what she actually receipt is not a date on it what's the bitter on this topic of the balancing of the connections that dr peterson seems to have made on one side of the balance is a question bugbee you've got ms peterson's prior record in the comments the boasting comments about being in charge of the operation the other side you've got the amount of methamphetamine it issue in the gone ones he was peterson here balancing apples and bananas oftentimes we see the amount of the drug in the firearms as distinguishing characteristics between the defendants rather than similarities i believe that the court collecting guns not as some sort of attempt to move forward in a violent manner in advance of drug activity but in fact he was taking them in trade which was not too unusual for someone in the community of north done primarily by mr more acute will was clear that mr peterson was actually directing some of the other covers to buy from mr moore and that she herself had her own customer base and that she in fact was well aware of the type of activity that was going on at the same place that she had back living so i think the court looked at each of those factors and in the balance washed them together to find that both of downed were equally culpable for what they called a joint undertaking activity clearly the two of them were living together in a long term relationship at the same location and both of them through their own statements were aware of the day to day operations and so i think the court considers that along with her respect the concerns that you already had trashed which are codefendant not here sick quite simply she had a criminal history and it was for drug distribution a she also had a criminal history that involved a possession of a firearm a she also had a substance abuse history which i think it's very noteworthy here because the court felt that that fifty year substance abuse history when weighed in the balance of all the things that be considered a place or at a greater risk to reset of his and so for those reasons i think or i would note that there was a thoughtful analysis as well that was perhaps glossed over by the defendant in the fact that there was a real comparison and contrasting going on between these two individuals by the court and i think that gets back to your honor's overall concern of whether there was some actual specific consideration given to miss peterson's actual predicament it was clear that the court was actually  doing an analysis of the good points that she had provided to law enforcement and her negative points and so not only did it take into account some of the things that i stressed like her substance abuse and prior criminal history it also gave her credit for the fact that she actually did provide a deep briefing and that she she had shown sure and it also took into account the fact that she in fact was willing to consider the fact  that her age and some of her characteristics led him to believe that this this situation in the sentence that he would give her would not be unduly necessary or beyond what was necessary given the fact that she had some health concerns as well so there was a totality of circumstances that were taken into account here and it clearly was thoughtfully explained there's nothing here that was unwarranted or nothing here that was procedural  oranges balancing that the court had done for apples and bananas only arrives at the sixty six months because it just was so focused on parody parody he had walked into that courtroom thinking it's got to be you around what more got has to be one more got and i want to treat everyone similarly but that similar treatment ignored all of the differences between her and god and more and i used the word ignored because they are such distinctly different we never see ten firearms five of them stolen one of them loaded next to the math that's not a collection a loaded pistol is not it is not a collector's piece when it's right next to the drugs in them for the money and yet that sort of lack of distinction is really what the judge did here and i guess i'll grant you mr wagner that that's very unusual and to be said oh that's what good old boys in wisconsin do which may be true by the way you know they enjoy their deer hunting and all the rest of it but it's still not what one normally a long time ago the boy from wisconsin i can tell you there are ten stolen firearms in my house and i can tell you also that nike pietersen has the right to expect that under pepper and all of the supreme court's pattern precedent and this court precedent if there be an individual as assessment that it would take account of the guidelines but it wouldn't be paid just to more now have the court not made those comments about the need to