suffered from diagnosed and identifying all health problems caused by years and years of sexual and physical abuse the evidence established that jordan was amenable to treatment each one of the experts the government this well that's jordan's experts testify that he was not only amenable to treatment but there was a likelihood didn't fact he could be rehabilitated the evidence established that there were at least two facilities that were released i think that's that's that test fair to say that i would also point out that the experts all believe that he could be successfully treated within that period of time and how does the how is that permissible for the district court to the uncertainty i think i think that what i think that would go into the calculus of whether or not it was likely that the juvenile could be rehabilitated and if the evidence shows by preponderance of the evidence that it is in fact likely t juvenile could be rehabilitated or there was i guess maybe a lower standard here is the realistic chance that he could be rehabilitated and on that and that is that that is where your question comes into weighing process and would be our position now the factors that i just outlined were they were and i think undisputed i don't think that the government has any dispute with the evidence what the government did do however was that and the government quite frankly was very clear in his position it maintained today it's the crime in and of itself was the factor that should mandate on this juveniles transfer you fall although certainly there is the district court has some discretion in how the way that the various factors and what weight to place on the various factors i think that the district court here aired in large part among other ways and essentially making the nature of the offense here the dispositive issue there there are a number of cases that i cited in my brief were juveniles have been charged with similar crime first degree murder and maybe the facts in those cases were even worse for the district courts to waive all of the factors and came to a different conclusion now realizing that the abuse of discretion standard doesn't necessarily look at the so much the correctness of the decision but whether or not it's within a range of of acceptance i would still submit to to this court that the district court cared because quite frankly the evidence established that there was a likelihood that this juvenile could be rehabilitated within the time period allowed by the federal juvenile delinquen just a court kind of uses discretion in a number of different ways and i think it would be our position to quite frankly the evidence just did not support the the the district courts conclusion the district court came to the wrong conclusion  frankly based upon the evidence which was some reservations we don't necessarily dispute the district court's findings of fact but what we dispute is the district court's ultimate conclusion here that it just quite i tried to think of my response to that question and i and the way i would respond is notwithstanding that mistake to just records conclusion here it was wrong it was an abuse of discretion i would also i proceed as it did without direct guidance at that time from this court the court does not have to make that assumption and therefore should again relay the factors given the the facts he's challenging the discretion my question is why why should we have to vacate and send this case that for reconsideration by the district court under t yes i understand the district court can't be punished too much for this because t j s came out after the district court made its decision but i would like to find out from you whether you believe we have to apply t j even though it came out after the district court made its decision and number two if we have to apply t j s why wouldn't we be required three mand so that the district court can make a determination of whether or not it wishes to considered the likelihood of conviction in this crime in its matrix of things which we waiting to determine whether there should be should be tried as a he had a reasonable prospects for rehabilitation so in the face of that record what are we supposed to make the judge's wayne who's the likelihood of rehabilitation when it's  in considering this judgment out but it was certainly considering i judge that did exactly the same thing in that case that it did here completely comply with the federal juvenile delinquency act by making findings on every assumption of guilt now that the statute doesn't fact presume treatment that's a presumption that's not just the sort of level playing field that comes in with the presumption under the statute and treatment and then you have the experts who are there to weigh in on the issue of treatment and you're saying well they aren't addressing all of the factors that's true but the government bears the burden of actually in the district court we didn't for mandatory transport the only case in a federal circuit the federal court system that deals with this issue was the southern district of new york district court case that went against the government on this issue that the affair expand the conviction had to be firing off and because the burglary the commission of it and the conviction straddled this offense we can see that ok so that's that you are absolutely right and so i think that's why the government conceded that issue because that case was well taken i would take issue with the with the government's position that the experts did not consider the six factors that the district court did in fact they did and in fact the expert hired by the juvenile in fact if you look at her report she specifically under those exact headings analyzed each and every one of those factors so i think that the experts analyze this juvenile chances for rehabilitation in light of the factors under section fifty fifty thirty two and that in fact this all of them the other thing i have to say is i think that the government's right that no court has to accept carte blanche expert opinions and we're not trying to advance that novel argument here today but what the court does have to keep in mind here as the judge fisher pointed  is that the government or the burton and the government there was a presumption that the government had to overcome and the government just quite simply didn't do that all they did was they came in and said this crime was padded and united states versus bad marriage and in that case this court characterized that type of criminal history as of one that ravaged by substance abuse and not afraid to pray for a criminal that was an adult this was a juvenile juvenile who