that states versus that really the district court may not simply conclude that the defendant was responsible for a certain amount of drugs beyond a reasonable doubt or a lot of drugs   recognized that and i guess you know being there i guess you had to be there and think it was necessary to have jack simply wasn't going to rely on those amounts that were in the yes side and he did not rely on the district court may accept the factual findings under those circumstances there's no obligation for the government to go forth and present evidence if the matters are set forth in the pre sentence report and the defendant has not involves objections to the person it's reported none of the cases cited by the defendant involve this factual scenario where there was no objection at all to the priest in his report the defendant here never contested the amount of drugs he never suggested a different amount to the court he never asked for more specific bindings from the district court he never asked the district court to specifically set out a lesser amount or to explain how the court had attributed that in this particular case it's very ironic because the judge on his own reduced the criminal history category the judge also on his own came down  the guidelines range that would have been called for by the total amount of drugs or in the recent its report in the charlesworth case this court said that where there has been no objection to the pre sente report it is not necessary for the district court to make specific findings under rule thirty two there's simply no issue that's been presented to the district court that the district court must rule on or m specific findings concerning the jury here came down from a three sixty to life guideline range and came down five years below the bottom of that and gave a twenty five year sentence to sustain a twenty five year in order to sustain a guideline level thirty four if you only consider the three sales that mr santiago personally made to undercover agents in this case and the three sales that his codefendant mr ray has made undercover agents in this case you have a total of approximately one hundred seventy five grams of meth actual which by that amount of loans sustains a that's over six pounds of methamphetamine that the government would have shown jury in this case that's completely setting aside any account testimony from coconspirators and clearly that's what the judge was just counting it was not the actual drugs in hand it was the account testimony and here had had the district court simply accepted the amounts of drugs sept fourth and the  defendant currently makes on appeal would not even exist how can it be so that when the judge exercises his discretion under the booker case and comes down five years that that the margin for error thereby shrinks that it just does not make any sense that you gave a very reasonable sentence here or even a lenient sentence and this court should  of sensors for different reasons and we have no rhyme or reason we have no standard we have conspiracy you've got five six people involved in the same thing you've got to do it they've got to be there whether anybody objects to it whether you go ta