career offender enhancement it's actually a two part argument the first relates to a conviction that occurred in the state of colorado for the offense of second degree burglary the parties for the law spent a great deal of time in the district court and with pleadings arguing over whether the what counsel in my office failed to note as did the district court and the government that that particular statute also includes a provision which makes it a class four fel dwelling is not involved as he was originally charged it was a class and the charging document is in the act of record he was charged with a class three felony the burglary  that was a complaint filed or an information file which which under the colorado statute means it was not a dwelling that should have been the end of the inquiry however because he in fact play add to the burglary of a non that with not pans are included the government directed the district court's attention to things such as the witnesses on the act complaint which is judgment simply shows the convection again the real problem is that the parties missed reading the entire statute which would have made it clear on its price that this was not a glass ceiling well let me tell you what i think the real problem is from my corner of you and that is that on the question of whether the two robbery convictions are related or unrelated it seems to me that are related or not and on  that they were treated together for sentencing at the same time and place so my question is perhaps in the consolidation order and given all those other other court they were sentenced to gather this was an operation under federal rule twenty which is somewhat different in that that was a basically we would also argue a common scheme here in that mr shuman committed bike robbery in nevada committed a bank robbery in california was later apprehended is yet a third state return to colorado the the case out of nevada was rule twenty two colorado one hundred and it was for the convenience and the government says that he should not get a windfall or get a fright for that well unfortunately problem is that's with the district court and our review of the district court's determination this district affords determination about the other two cases is deferential not related because they they work for different crimes we don't have that here we have a bank robbery a bank robbery and a bank robbery so that factor isn't true they weren't tried on the one docket number well in a sentence that doesn't appear to be true but that's how federal courts unlike state courts handle cases that are brought in on their typically are the two docket numbers now unfortunately those records because of the age are not electronically available from the district of colorado at this point but when he appeared before the judge and there was a reference in the pleadings to the guideline calculation that was used in colorado quite frankly i don't know how the attorney who prepared that pleading got that information but there was a reference to the grouping and the treatment of the used just like the again in a single case charging multiple robberies there would be a percentage for robbery one s movie that would run concurrently and that's all that happened here you hurt all right carcasses even in the absence of a formal order this was a consolidation a benefit to serve him in perpetuity till the end of time for purposes of the arm her fender statute as the district court noted it's very common as judge farmer noted you're uncommon that cases are handled together for all sorts of reasons including and i placed that line twenty one the court stated the fact that they were treated for sentencing at the same time and that the sentences were concurrent is really not unusual in my experience in fact it's probably common your honor would i believe it states this is the court is recognizing that frequently cases are handled at the same time but that doesn't render them related as contemplated in the guidelines or otherwise factually or logically related  the same offenses and they were sentenced on the same day that if that was the only inquiry there would be no balancing of factors analysis the inquiry would end right there and in fact all of these factors can be considered by the district courts and which ones  any way factually related logically related or resolved in that manner for any other reason other than judicial economy and i think that is what the court has articulated that it wasn't meaningful the argument being made now by the appellant that well these were let's assume that they just recorded come out the other way given the supreme court's pronouncement and deference would you lose this appeal i believe that we probably would because i think that imposed at the same time if this court is your court you deference to the trial court's decision then and i don't think it can never be reversed if there's absolutely no basis for that finding clearly it could be