thank you your honors my name is david nast i'm with the federal defenders of montana and i represent ms drugs and on this case presents one issue one issue on lee and that's whether or not the sentence that was imposed upon him is gone is reasonable in light of all of the factors set forth in eighteen the united states code section thirty five fifty three a miss can of course maintains that it was not a recent sense that it was greater than necessary to achieve the goals from i'm reading from the first circuit case that they were analyzing the issue of whether or not they could review the court's refusal to depart under the old law because if that was the way it appeared to have been presented in that case of course should use in determining whether or not the case was reasonable but it doesn't affect the jurisdiction in the moment i do and i also will read correctly that you're making a legal challenge under three five fifty three  in the words that there was an improper weighing of statutory factors which would be illegally or which we would have jurisdiction to review yes yes that essentially that the court placed on effectively ignored a number of the in a number of respects and given the fact that miss gone has no criminal history to speak of she has despite a number of difficulties in her life i think performed remarkably there earlier tonight and then and there had to wait the way the order was worded and they the order indicated she could be released if she wanted to be released and i was trying to talk to her you know that in from your question as has sort of has gotten to you what i would like to address is four different issues i'd like to quickly discuss jurisdiction and then i'd like to discuss the resumption of reasonable must as well as why the sentence was reasonable and finally addressed the mental health issue to address your question for closure there's no dispute in this case that the guideline range was properly calculated there's also no dispute in that book or did not alter the appeal provision thirty seven forty two and it left it intact and in fact the relevant portion of the book or opinion states that the act to me to beg the question in this case which had to do really with the challenge to the weighing the statutory factors so if if there is a legal challenge under the earth however one might we booker to and the government would certainly argue that we need to take a look at the book or opinion itself and the supreme court certainly did not go to thirty seven forty two anyway and clearly state that  there are it is one year supervisory and so raise a clear if it were determined to be unreasonable or without appropriate consideration of the factors she would be released for your honor we certainly don't mean it should be vindictive or we don't mean to be stubborn about the sense but we did think that the sentence was supposed reasonably and there are the principles of life here that we thought were important including the jurisdictional issue the defense counsel here today and the defense review raised two issues relative her mental illness that said it suggested that this would not be reasonable reasonable sense for the first one was that her bipolar disorder requires constant treatment and monitoring and second her psychiatrist stated that incarceration could exacerbate her condition in a very dangerous situation like to address each of those if i could first of all i think the record demonstrates that the defendant does not need constant treatment and monitoring in the record the defendant testified at the motion for release pending appeal that she had not seen her physician for six months she also testified that she had not seen her counselor for six months now even if she did require constant monitoring in treatment i think that the point made by the district judge at sentencing that the u s prison facilities are staffed with people capable of addressing these would she didn't even say it was likely she said it could and i think that's an important distinction if the court were to basically not impose a prison sentence on anyone for whom prison could result in a dangerous situation i think that would have fairly broad impact it would have impact not only in the middle illness arena it could have an impact on informants who could be put in a dangerous situation by the put in prison population as well as  she had suicidal ideation in any case though she didn't say that she was she would be suicidal or was very likely to be suicidal she simply said that it could result in a dangerous situation and again of trust but a use of trust that occurred over thirty months as well as her motive here it wasn't just really this has been cited in the briefs but it was revenge paid second with respect to her mental illness the doctor in her letter i think put it in the strongest terms that she could  is generally consistent with professional practice she stated that in her opinion incarceration could be just asters to her mental health and physical well being and i don't think that fit any position would ever state deteriorating with respect to her mental health the within the guidelines range but also within the guidelines range with a sense of probation or a sense of community confinement all of those fell within the guidelines range and given the fact that this crime occurred we have to remember five years sentencing five years prior to enticement in there was no indication in this kind if in any trouble since that and in fact had any trouble in her fifty five fifty six years on earth with the exception of a misdemeanor from fact thirty years ago there was no need to impose that purchased term available under the sentencing guidelines to protect the public there was no need for the sentence to provide her with rehabilitation in fact