equal protection in consideration and or non consideration of certain factors at his sentencing hearing in particular the two arguments that he's concerned about are an argument regarding the rejection of  an argument regarding the fact that he had an absent father in his home and that that impacted his life as a juvenile and he was still very young when this off into curd he was eighteen years old in approximately four months and also to bring a consideration of the brain science argument and that has to do with obviously the development of the burning and the scientific information regarding brain development mr close position is that the court erroneous lee rejected the absent father argument and in so doing so basically indicated that it's not uncommon in the african american home for there to be an absent father so that's not an argument that can be accepted or should be should be put forward i assume or should be given due consideration but there is a reason basis for the court to reject that particular argument and in fact that belief is an erroneous stereotype as cited in the briefing the indications are that actually black fathers african american fathers are generally more involved do more of the care of their minor children then at other believe that the statistics involved both white fathers and latino fathers and so there seem to be a misapprehension by the court in thinking that that this shouldn't be considered for sentencing purposes  because it's just not uncommon and yet it is more apparently more uncommon there than than in where white father figures are latino father figures are  concerned so the equal protection argument st of all we have the erroneous stereotype and that's being used to treat two classes of people differently the those who are black or and have been missing black father in the family as opposed to those who are white or other races and have a missing father in the family so basically we have to created classes here based on race and the question is is there really a rational relationship between the disparate treatment and some legitimate government interest well obviously there's no legitimate government interest in any type of different treatment here and this result on this observation the central argument for the united states as i understand it is there's absolutely no reason to think this was anything other than an irrelevant aside so my question is why do you think that this mattered to the district  why do i think that that the that the clients race mattered to the district judge why but why do you think that this observation about how often other fathers are missing was pertinent to the district the government's argument is that the that the judge said over and over i am assessing what your upbringing was and how well you were taken you assume that this observation about missing parents for other people mattered i'm simply asking why that's a good assumption so your honor i think if i understand this correctly the point is if the judge can say you had a good upbringing then she gets to discount the things that might have affected that and that's what happened here is she completely discounted the fact that there was an absent father and that might have actually had a serious impact on him how much better his life might have ben how he might have been better guided and made better decisions that counsel maybe i'm just not being clear the judge made observations about why this defendant relying on this stereotype playing playing a role my argument was not that mr coe did not have a mother in his life or have other resources in his life that helped him but obviously they didn't help him enough and having an absent father played into that and increase his likelihood of having the problems that he had so you can't is this is sort of like comparing apples and oranges and saying well you have these oranges over here is a lie should be good when we all know your life would be a lot better if you had the apples in your life as well so what is missing is the consideration of the absent father and what impact that actually had on his life so you know folks have good things go in their life and they have bad things going their life she only considered the good thing that he had  mother and a grandmother who were there who were there for him but did not consider this the fact or refused to consider the fact or that he had an absent father and she refused to because that was a commonly they were basically she said are you thinking well judge i think we get to consider what's in the record and what she says she didn't didn't consider and she wasn't going to consider that so how does that play and if she had actually given  due consideration then she might well have returned a more lenient sentence for the for the client i don't have the crystal ball that lets me say that had she appropriately considered it that she would have but i can say that by not appropriately considering it she she leaves out this really important segment of his life which is something that she needs to consider in the three thousand five hundred and fifty three a factors and i'm sorry  whether or not it played a role i think your honor i would draw the court's attention i believe it is to pages twenty three dollars twenty four cents of the transcript the court's own words draw the court's attention to it s intention the court is addressing the appellant's st argument mitigation and said now does the fact that you lost your father to imprisonment at age twelve obviously at  a racially remark question i'm asking is how do we know that the racially to change remark played no role in the calculation i assume were agreed that if the judge gave mr karr even one day more in prison because of his race that is a reversible error so each side you know argument is confident that the judge  did or did not place any weight on this statement about our often black fathers are missing from their children's upbringing how do we know whether th your honor again i turned to the court's transcript what the court is arguing or explaining is the difference she's considering and that has to do with whether or not this particular person had a things your confident that she relied on and the th was on the south coast lawyer is confident that th was important and i'm sitting here looking at the transcript trying to figure out how we know whether the th was important were just a piece of fluff i appreciate the court's question and again i direct the court's the transcript because the transcript states what she is considering what this court is considering is whether or not there is support system or whether it is not what she is attempting to explain to the appellant at the sentencing hearing is hey this is not uncommon basically get over it you had other people in your in your on your side and those are the reasons why you should have had a good upbringing we cannot excuse any type of criminal conduct because there's a loss now there isn't anything other in what is said than a very individualized very personal and  specific statement by the court the court does say i'm a says sure you had some loss but unlike some people who have no one that's not your story there's no evidence tying diff the court sentence to any type of racial connotation other than what is read into it by appellant the going on from that counsel repeatedly in briefs state that the court wholly dismisses or throws away the other arguments this court went through a meticulous thorough exhaustive review of all of the sentencing factors and thirty five eight the victim impact the fact that he had a loving mother and a support system the fact that the crime facts itself were outrageous the court used all of those factors in making the assessment this is unlike a situation the court recently ruled upon where in the central district one of the district court judges said a should receive a sentence lower than one individual but higher than another and did the opposite this is one where the court very clearly considered all the factors and said based on what i have heard i am sentencing you at the low end of the guideline and not  guideline the court didn't isolate one factor at the court considered many factors that also includes appellant nd argument and that has to do with the brain development if you look at the brain development the district court does mention that she takes that into consideration and she does give an explanation for her consideration and that's all that's required this is  discretionary issue there's no basis upon which to file a procedure or to find a procedural error when the court does make that assessment in the reply brief appellant attempts to argue that the court  misunderstood her misapprehended this argument stating that the court focused upon the age of eighteen or nineteen and i would draw the court's attention to the fact that in document ten pages full page forty three lines nine to ten appellant in argument mention the fact that the appellate mr coe was eighteen years old mr coder and his allocution also mentioned that he was eighteen years old so the court's comments mirror those of the defendant therefore there is nothing within the brain science argument that should cause any concern it was due to fully considered and set aside finally appellant argues that  there is a mistake of fact a clearly erroneous mistake a fact as it relates to a math looking at that myth argument st commentators have read and researchers recent minds are different the court could not have made a clearly erroneous mistake nd appellants own research demonstrates that the court district court was correct and i would draw the court's attention to the new york times article on page hundred and twelve written by kendra in the sol that says it's a black man it's a myth that black fathers are absent the opening sentence of that article says that more than half of black homes are headed by women what the district court stated that it just comment in our community is actually correct based upon appellants own argument your honor i respectfully request that the district court at this court find thorough in a well considered consideration of all the factors raised by mr coe at the sentencing hearing and to affirm the judgment thank your honor your hon your honors i want to take just a moment to address the brain science argument and saying that you know i did the transcript makes clear that the judge doesn't really understand at sentencing what that brain science argument is about when she indicated that  she considered it but that even young men who are eighteen mostly young men who are eighteen didn't commit these kind of crimes that's comparing the argument to the argument not to the three thousand five hundred and fifty three a factor is giving it to weight in consideration there and the reality is that that the fact that every other person in the world may not have done this does not mean that it is not a valid argument for consideration in in sentencing and that's why we have such things as imperfect arrests because you because it covers a broad range of individuals such as that you know the defendants and roper and graham your argument is that it covers everyone my argument is that if true then it would be a factor that must be considered circumstances in the circumstances of the crime so what broad brush argument like this one it seems to me can rightly be rejected in a summary fashion i don't get any argument that in its essence impacts individual can be given that broad brush brush look and it's completely just regarded it is an your honor because we're because we're looking at individuals and all of the elements in their lives that impact them t bring them to this moment but the fact that the same thing might impact somebody else doesn't mean it impacts them in the same way so we have to look at the individual or i point is that you did not particularize the arguments you call it was the very broad brush his psychological makeup that contributed to his criminality then it seems to me the court can comment on it in a very gentle fashion and move on without violating any norm of sentencing and of course i hope you'll understand that i respectfully disagree because i do think that there was information considering his youth and his life that supported that argument