two the sentencing guidelines commission amended sections two l one point effective in november of two thousand and six the amendments to that guideline section altered the specific offense mind rather mr vasquez the barker was arrested in two thousand and seventeen at that time he was stopped for traffic violations pulled over and was compliant with law enforcement indicating he didn't think he had done anything wrong prior fifty votes seven month sentence that was not sufficient to deter yet another reentry and a fifty seven month sentence  i'm not sure that that's as compelling so are you arguing that the district court judges explanation for going above the guidelines was not sufficiently particularized are you arguing that the reasons the court gave don't justify the high sentence the latter your honor the court relied upon it's speculation regarding mr bass was a park is danger to the public and based on its perception of individuals who drive without ella drivers like driver's license which constitute a number of mr bass was of course part what about the other factors that the court relied upon to channel ten just identified even if what you say about that to the traffic comment is correct wouldn't that be sufficient to justify going to the problem with that and it would be on its own if the court provided sufficient  defense it started st with an analysis of the correct guideline rate then the district court thoroughly explained why the sentence was appropriate under those three thousand five hundred and fifty three a factors st the court discussed the nature and nature and circumstances of this offense which was illegal reactionary the the court stated basically the defendant over the course of years had ignored federal law after three prior to forty sions he had illegally re entered again and that aggravated the circumstances of this offense the court then went on to discuss the defendant's history and characteristics he noted that as your honor noted that it was not just one illegal rancher it was several different types of  including obstruction of justice illegal re entry aggravated criminal sexual abuse of a minor violation of sex offender registration act and driving license revoked on two separate occasions were all felony convictions that the court took into consideration the court also noted the defendant's character specifically the court stated that the defendant had proximately i believe it was eleven dependents that the that there was no record that the defendant had supported for the district court probation officer which was the defendant told probation officer he would not change anything in his life and he didn't do didn't think he did done anything wrong the court obviously consider that in response to the defendant's lack of remorse for his current situation the court when iran and talked about deterrence the deterrence factor specifically that the fifty seven months as your honor mentioned had not deterred the defendant and on top of that he had come back to the country in violation of a supervised release and it was additionally sense to twenty four months in the bureau of prisons and that i'm not sure he the court stated i don't believe that i gave you a lower sentence and then you were deported i think you would come back i don't think you would follow the law and clearly that was the essence of the defendant of the district court's sense in this case that he believed that the defendant would not follow the law he also was it was very important to the district court and his concerns were regarding public safety he indicated that the defendant had violated his laws not only not the federal laws but not only through the legal reentry but that he continued to drive without a license it obstructed justice he gave alias names and fake names he failed to register  offender all in violation of federal and state laws that being said the court concluded that the defendant's conduct would create a legitimate threat to public safety again the defendant's own statement worked against himself when he said he wouldn't change anything wrong so when the court's concern was that if he does not believe he did anything wrong what's to say that he wouldn't do this again the court also talked about the need to promote respect for the law and provide just punishment he knew that the fifty seven month sentence had had not worked in the past he also knew the twenty four months and said that deterred the defendant and the defendant had still come back the district court also did not abuse its discretion and imposing an above guideline said the judge and it was substantially substantively reasonable and within the court's discretion and well within the twenty year max the court talked at length about what it's concern was with the defendant and those concerns were reasonable st the defendant's lack of respect for the law again not to reiterate again that the court discussed several of the defendant's violations of the law and they believe