twenty four months for being in line or a participant in the conspiracy he was held responsible for a methamphetamine lab that operated prior to his participation in the conspiracy and the sentence was clearly unreasonable i would like to start out by that this stopped before the first shipment of pseudoephedrine arrived at that residence and all the evidence is that mr on how to participate in the conspiracy from that first shipment on he cannot be held responsible for relevant punish people who are were not only making mats but making it a very dangerous way of endangered the lives of others the lives of children mr wrong who had no involvement in jeans and we don't know how the methamphetamine that may or may have been manufactured occurred so there are as i understand it there has to be evidence of harm to minor right that's correct and your position is that wasn't shown by involvement so he's not the one manufacturing meth he's not the one we've been to the lab was there it's clear from the record that this lab is behind the garage behind a chicken coop with the padlock to work with the trap door hiding the chemicals mr on how was the guy part of the conspiracy relevant cons i cannot make him responsible for something that happened in the past only what happened in the future and we don't know how we know that that lab did not operate from the moment that mr ron who was part of that conspiracy so he cannot be held conspiracy was not an overt act is not a matter of means it's nothing that the government would have had to prove had they gone to trial so his enhanced meant his doubling of distance based on a fact that's not even part of the conspiracy not even part of what the vacated because the guy's life calculation of hands with being correct that's correct we would really get a reasonable mess that we would get to reasonable as a final there was all these other conspirators who are either fugitives are not yet indicted there's someone over in the middle east who's who's coordinating this whole thing oh please all the way down to every time we get a defendant in front of us the someone over in the middle east or the someone in colombia who was a much bigger shot the nears so therefore this guy is mine or i don't believe it well that's not evidence from the government that this operation began in the middle east and you know that they al you may want to go to what at least you have a reason to suspect somebody on this panel so this is your big problem what about the children we just saw some toys that's what the seen in the vicinity and from that that it created a substantial risk of harm to the life of a minor it must be supported by clear and convincing evidence it may as with respect to any other matter under the guidelines be based not necessarily on something of which a defendant has direct knowledge or involvement but something that at least reasonably foreseeable to a defendant within the course of the conspiracy now in this case i'd like to ruling first with regard to the district court's ruling the district court found not only that this was reasonably foreseeable to this defendant mr neuron home what was written to seal the fact that there was  and that it created a substantial risk of harm to the life of a minor which is the argument here is that there was no manufacture the manufacturing didn't take place during his involved in in the conspiracy does that matter not require for example that there be a zen operating methamphetamine laboratory wells would agree with you on that point where do we get the children with regard to the children your honor  t is clear that this defendant on each of the three occasions he was unloading the large shipments of pseudoephedrine at the location that he saw our children in the front yard playing that the four children who  resided at this location and it is just to give some perspective to the location this is not a location that is out in a rural area or a very large location this is a modest home in a residential area the garage is detached but the garage is a short distance from the residence and the actual structure containing the most lab was eight to ten feet behind that rob the discussion that the district  because the the presence of them last lab defending dharmas thought might bring law enforcement scrutiny to that location and he wanted to actually store boxes of pseudoephedrine there clearly that conversation tell and with regard to the children as i said your honor the four children were playing in the front yard on each of the three located at three occasions that this defendant unloaded the pseudoephedrine that was over a more than seven month fact that you don't have messed cooking going on at that very moment that you don't have this defendant involved in the actual cooking of the methamphetamine those facts the government concedes but the risk of harm actually going on at that time that many of the ingredients necessary were present that those ingredients pose a danger both individually and combination they just recorded in this case by the way made very specific findings as to particular items that were found on the location it was not just a general conclusion by the district court that oh we we have what was a mess left here that's dangerous the district court one inch great detail in its findings identifying specific items that posed a danger noting that some of the items not only were within the structure of the chicken coop but also d throughout the backyard between the garage and the chicken coop so the district court went into great detail describing what was the condition of that lab during the time of this defendant's participation and finding that that condition during the time of this difference participation even though there was no cooking per se is going on but i three hundred twenty four months yes the forty six months and we look at the relative activity and i know it's not our job to spend it but that's why it's there us to sort of unspoken thing this causing the government received a five k departure for substantial cooperation of ten levels the difference under the guidelines between the sentence this defendant received three hundred twenty four months and defendant rosko sentence one hundred  knew that his own children were living there are obviously the court applied that enhancement to that codefendant contrary to the government's request and the probation officers recommendation with respect to codefendan involvement as far as the government's evidence was concerned only concerned the third and final delivery unlike use defendant defendant manhole the government had no evidence concerning other is not a case where the district court sentence above the guidelines or gave anything other than a than a low end sentence and the district court on the ambling remained wanting great details through the fact that at first sound persuasive the aggravating facts in this case so it's clear from the record that the district court gaze a sentence that upon consideration of the evidence found to be reasonable certainly it's a very high it's going to it's higher than defendants there's no getting around that but as to whether or not there are bases in fact and for the sentence as to whether or not the district court abused its discretion in evaluating these factors on the government's admits that the record shows it did not and your honour's if the court has no further questions i'd submit thank you thank you you i would like to point out a few things first of all mr rose to receive the sense of one hundred thirty five months not one hundred sixty eight months he was held responsible for the methamphetamine lab it was on his property he was paid by the person making the meth use all the person go there every day to make the map it that the only things that were in the garage which is the only place that mr ron however is with camping fuel which is a common item in many people's garages and some i had dined which was in a closed trash bag every other chemical every other dangerous substance was behind a that occurred or where it occurred or anything like that we don't know how it was manufactured for all we know was manufacturing the safest most possible way and where there were no children or anybody harmed but that's why he can't be held responsible for it happening at this residence before he was there in a lab that