explain one month what did he not explain well it's a matter of what the law is or what the ninth circuit is asking what the law should be a one time twenty month sentence one hundred twenty m and that's why that issue was raised judge you know well let's just talk about another issue the best you could get out of that is one month if everything ousters against you you mentioned series of sentencing crap cases will be heard back in about one thousand ninety five or ninety six and that was at that time that was sort of a stopgap measure for the sentencing guidelines because it was the  judge didn't think that sufficient argument had been made for the mandatory or for the sentencing entrapment and one of the other issues is that since  one kilogram seller who is set up by somebody been a judge issue understand and i don't see why it's not an issue i e it seems to me that you can raise that as you can raise any other attract men if you can say well they attract me with regard to the amount that went to the jury but it's still a testify as to any prior activity with the between the informant in my client the conspiracy period was a very short period of time a twenty two to june three what the informant was testifying to world election prior acts there too they were disclosed as for all four be tight the information they work disclosed in the pretrial statements they weren't even disclosed of everything when again there's a mandatory minimum because it's a jury verdict unless you could do something with a jury verdict it doesn't make any difference well that's the curious thing about sentencing entrapment judge it appears to up there are two types of entrapment from the case law that i've seen there's entrapment that goes to the guilt portion and then there's imperfect entrapment which goes to the sentencing in this case there was no entrapment  not a guidelines problem because the queen found that there was no sentencing and try now but it's not a problem anyway because the principle problem here is a ten year mandatory minimum that came out of the jury verdict correct so the issue as to whether the entrapment instructions in any form went to the jury closing none went ok the jury question none was requested there was one well let me there was a trial given before the jury before evidence was provided and entrapment instruction was read to the jury because at that point it wasn't clear what type of evidence the defendant would be putting on to warrant an entrapment instruction at the end during the during the discussion of the jury instructions the court found that the defendant had not provided sufficient evidence to warrant an entrapment instruction and the court then did not provide an entrapment instruction to the jury so that it was not presented  fairly obvious that the government was trying very hard to get him to sell more than five kilograms of cocaine and there must have been a pretty good reason probably because they wanted to have a mandatory minimum sentence what that's not all of the standard the informant had an extensive history with the defendant of buying kilogram levels of cocaine so it could have been just as argued below for the district court it would have been just as appropriate to make multiple heuer gram purchases evidence was in trial there was no hesitation whatsoever the five kilograms came such that there was no evidence to suggest that he was not predisposed to do it he was reluctant to do it was pushed into doing it or in any other way  and there is there's also in several cases cited in the brief there's a slightly different standard for entrapment in the guilt phase versus the sentencing entrapment one of the you with regard to the amount but that doesn't seem to tend to focus on the conversation or are classed as a part of hearing and other than that there was no other the other factors that are taken into consideration to show that this defendant was not predisposed to commit this crime and the court had all that information before it when the court decided not to provide that instruction to the jury another thirty no more questions i can move on to the next point that the opponent raised and that i when that complaint was filed and identified had a four year relationship with the defendant and was providing and was attending drugs from the defendant two weeks before trial that was just the name of it was disclosed but it was in no way a surprise to the defense him to explain how she was able to call and i mean as far as to provide a context to the case and the evidence those judged because that has to do with the areas in which properly could be searched