suffered extensive sexual abuse and had many issues of which the government the court and myself were all aware of after about three months of plea negotiations we all agreed and  to enter into a plea agreement with a condition and with the stipulated sentence actually that mr market you know you or your brief is sort of sprinkled with those observations this is not an transferred from our home to the santa fe facility then he was no longer in he was no longer under a c c community corrections confinement but he was he no longer within the terms of the order i agree to your honor i think the terms of the order are important and as i understand it so is the juvenile shopper just a pagan a sex offender treatment program specifically designed for the treatment of adolescents offenders as directed by the probation office to include but not limited to our home and complete the same our home asked that he be transferred so he's not going to stay there what is that about the status they sell the that doesn't qualify as a sex offender does but i don't think it qualifies as part of his probation and i think i think what i'm saying is that the order in this case makes the sentence illegal not so much the order but when they started interpreting when the court started interpret  treatment program and the security level is in effect and never mind well if and that's entirely your point and i think that's what the government is saying that he still under probation supervision yes he is but technically he's under the supervision of probation but if you look at what actually happened in this case he was removed put in a facility where he's incarcerated know in this case he was sentenced to a term of sixteen months as the court has stated there was which was the maximum term that he could that the judge that sentenced him at the time that that the sixteen months where he's not receiving sexual abuse treatment and again the sixty minutes was more of a punishment and there was nothing in those sixteen months that would indicate that he should he received that he should be receiving sex abuse treatment for sixteen months in this case they did focus on the rehabilitative state they didn't focus on the guidelines and or the advisory notes of the guidelines seven district court considered the policy statement in the district court says the guidelines and the district court said look he offended within twenty four hours of being released into a community treatment center and he months to get over i mean what more could what other bases do you say the district court should have touch i think that this record sort of touched on the fact that if carlos were an adult they would have considered at least the guideline range i also would let me go to sentencing would like to point out that if carlos had been had had a hearing when he was transferred from one facility to the other he would have been looking at the maximum they could have sentenced him to would have been forty three  things to that effect and that's where that comes from that he has to look at the point of we have the attention as well not to a particular facility but to a treatment program like our home after direction of the probation officers it was very clear from the order as and that is exactly what happened he the defendant went to our home and spent seventeen months there and the letter which is included in a record from the facility director indicates that they were bending over backwards to try and work with this young man because they recognize that he had severe problems and so they didn't just break it was going to be a quick process but nonetheless by the end of seventeen months it was clear to the staff there that he not only was not making any progress he wasn't interested in making any progress he basically enjoyed his condition and the letter also indicates that he had specifically vocalized intends to perpetrate again given the opportunity so really what was the choice there had to be done something he was now making any progress there the record is clear and there was specific testimony even from ms baka the director of the santa fe facility who seemed to be more concerned about the security issues and overall management but she herself agreed that this was in fact a program which is specifically designated force juvenile sex offenders options available we're talking about sex offender programs for juveniles and particularly because probation itself did not have funding the only way that they could put him anywhere was if it was a program that was in a funded by the which is what santa fe as well as our home were i think you're pushing are an open door on all the points you just made the one point of concern to me is a sixteen month sentence as distinct from the possibility of a ten some halfway house this records said i'm looking at everything that have been argued to him and been discussed in this position report you have this range on the one hand there is a range that would apply to an adult offender on the other hand there is the advisory range and i believe it's chapter seven of the guidelines and you can look at both of these and he said i've looked at everything but he was very concerned of basically everything that could be done through straight probation had already been done and the young man was still immediately real finding as soon as he had opportunity to do that so effectively the court said what can i do not only that will help him but will protect society it's simply a period  of in fact imprisonment now it's important no court recommended that to the extent that was available through video pete he would still be given rehabilitative treatment and we know what's happened with respect to that recommendation a i don't know that is there some way for you to determine that their website tells us what the facility is he is after and no it's not that's not where i live i hope rahm's know is there some way for you to determine that question is about reasonable as to what this record did and given the circumstances here of the long history of efforts already to assist carlos in getting over his problem which were not  succeeding in the situation of the hand and the end of the probation because of the timing of this understand that juvenile supervised release was not an available option so there really was no meaningful choice except to imprison him for his own best interests as well as for the communities to get whatever treatment might still be available through b o p applied to him but at the very least to keep him from abusing others and putting him and himself potentially in danger if someone responded to whatever is available to him but i'm not sure that specific adolescent sex abuse treatment is available at that facility and to your question about the sixteen months and my response was that that section thirty five fifty three a would be the avenue by which the court should have considered we have billet taishan as a form of punishment thirty five eighty two which discusses the imposition of se imprisonment specifically states that a court should sentence pursuant to thirty five fifty three a to the extent where applicable and then it says recognizing that imprisonment is not an appropriate means of promoting correction and