reside in hear oral arguments in the virgin islands this sitting is no exception the three judges of this p there is no basis in law or in fact upon which to affirm the sentence imposed in the the record presented clearly demonstrates that the sentencing judge failed to give any meaningful consideration to the factors caught in thirty five fifty three day and sentencing this defend its probation a significant downward variance from the advisory guideline range of fifteen twenty one months the sentencing judge who did not preside over the trial of this matter made three ball decisions and three bald statements none of which provide this court with an adequate record upon which to review on appeal let alone rule that the sentence imposed was a valid exercise thing that the court cited was the circumstances of the case but did not articulate what those circumstances were leaving the parties and this court to guess and in austin a decision by the circuit on september tenth of two thousand and seven this court held that where the record is an adequate there is no feeling of the gaps in search of a justification and that a significant variance mandates a fuller explanation when the party when a party makes an objection that has we submit your honor that the court below did not mention let alone to draw address the legal arguments made by the government in requesting a sentence within the guidelines there is no indication in the record presented that the court considered let alone gave meaningful consideration of the other sentencing factors codified in thirty five fifty three ed the judge also made a statement that he was accepting the very clear recommendation of the probation office court reviews only the p s r containing those findings of fact is for to give a sense and here the p s r specifically said paragraph sixty two that the guideline range was fifteen to twenty one months in prison at sixty nine a extraordinary circumstances and that is not inconsistent with the circuits present and that is not in concert with what the government is asking for as far as relief we are asking for and it's not unreasonable to ask that the trial judge actually issued a judgment trying to expand upon the reasons for the variance and simply cited or quoted one of the thirty five to three factors the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history characteristics of the defendant with no more explanation  this court held that the under the thirty five fifty three c the sentencing judge must state at the time of sentencing and in open court the specific reasons for a non guidelines range sentence the judge would in this case was  days later it was not in open court and in fact it was in a sealed filing which the government was then required to file under seal in this court and this court also stated in cooper that the practice of simply reciting a sensing factor without evidence of meaningful consideration is not a practice endorsed by this court the reasons of the government's asking for the judge below to articulate reasons is more critical here where the sentence imposed is that a significant varian and even go to court did not deal with it is that issue before no it's not it's not an issue before you and because i believe it can't be considering an issue that you haven't raised but i did raise it in the india in my in my   peel your honor the issue here is whether or not yesterday's ruling especially in god doesn't factor afford this court the opportunity or what it makes sense for this court to again remind this this  familiar with the fact to all nature of this case the statements of facts the characteristics that gave an opportunity to done what departure not be no reason for him not to be the judge if in court if in fact this court decides it should be remanded there's no reason to the fact that yesterday's ruling stands for the facts as to whether or not descendants was reasonable and there's no reason for this court to find out its descendants was not reasonable under the circumstances all the factors that were not and as i said and i as i say based on god and kimball it seems to me and smile pinion and i hope it is a court's opinion it would be unreasonable to remind this matter back to the district court for honor three short points the first is the fact that the sitting judge heard and considered as this court pointed out doesn't mean that the court actually adopted and the record is bare of any statement by the judge that he was adopting any argument by either counsel and in fact what's most of concern to the government is that he did not even address any argument raised by government counsel in favor of a sentence consistent with the guideline range most notably the fact that the crimes were not only conversion of over one hundred thousand dollars but the obstruction of justice which was an enhancement not a downward variance with regard to judge rostral question and whether or not it should be sent to the same judge for the sentencing like to point out first that the sentencing judge was not the trial judge so there is no special knowledge or anything else that the judge hat secondly i must point out that i am not authorized by the solicitor general to ask for a new judge but that does not stop the court from