critical issues in my opinion and they all form around the issue in the brief which is in title issue steve i'd like to start out first of all and with that portion of the argument why don't you tell us  first issue that i would like to address under that is the sticks amendment issue and the a fifty one issue of the burden of proof and that is that both of them require that was that regarded a prior conviction and and this is this is a case such as that particularly with the proof that was given here to the district court in regards to the parties and i'd like to move onto those because i have much to say about each of those  some of them are overlapping the problems that i have with those and those i'll try to indicate to the court prior number one the first problem with parnham one that i saw was that it is not within the eight forty one and  imprisonment for more than one year as the papers submitted to the district court state california penal section code seventeen said at a felony is a crime which is punishable with death or b imprisonment in the state prison so it doesn't fit under the taylor categorical approach and then i can move on to the next problem that i have with that and that is that they did not proper the correct statute to the district court regarding this tire offense they proffered eleven three fifty eight which is what he was charged with in the complaint however he pled to eleven three seventy seven and did not and the government did not provide the statutory definition of eleven three seventy seven to the district court so we don't even know what he pled guilty to understand that i'm not a california lori i don't pretend to be but to the best of my understanding this is what happened first he was charged with an eleven three fifty eight then he got a conditional probation based on eleven three seventy seven was number two that he got violated but it wasn't revote it was terminated and he was released to not only do we not have any finality of this i don't know what happened to it we also see that it was m into the sack him when we don't know the date that it was terminated because we can't figure out what really happened in this case the next problem i have with this is that in the conditions of probation the court does not indicate that he priors in that is that the no documents indicated the amount of cocaine that he was the matter of fact in the third prior it doesn't even tell what kind of drug he was supposed to have those in that if you're going to put a man away thirty four year old man away for life you've got to have something to rely on these kind of in trice amounts for all i know and i think due process causes us to pause when we're talking about these kinds of terms particularly the third one where you don't even know what kind of drug it was the next problem that also permeates throughout the  shepherd problem the government relied on what i term court and then it's for lack of a better word these are not reliable records sometimes they're computer printouts sometimes they're still in the blank apparently i'm not sure i guess i just want to i don't want to answer your question on that because i don't want to abandon an argument but i'm that's not one of my principal reasons for being here today i'm not sure that that's a correct argument i will say that  today after the three reviewing it i think the more important issue is whether they will final and they have to be final and eight forty one has to be a final conviction and under age forty eight and forty four it has to be a felony drug offense meaning that it has to second one the documents that they gave are a print out of eleven three fifty two which is twenty practive and then they did not feel what i see as a proper judgment in the case and therefore i don't know what it's how that relates although that's what he pled to i'm not sure what the judgment  it and the other two as well the defendant continues here today that there that he pleaded to a statute other then eleven three fifty eight there does appear to correct i don't know any other way to read it and construe it in conjunction with the other balance of documents the reference to your play to the complaints we had we reference the complaint and it is eleven three fifty a are they just reference of punishment sixteen months two years or three years again further support for the argument that this is not only is a felony but again squares with the one of the exhibits that was provided and i'm just turning to it to make certain there are a lot of documents that that after the bootstrapped in this matter for both the district court for this fourth review but one of the darkness that was provided him eight zero zero six three nine two so that in conjunction with the abstract of judgment plea aleph lee and the other minutes for abundantly the conclusion that a punishable by sixteen years two years or three years in this case the four minutes indicate that mr walker received a two year sentence i believe there may be also i can prison records that support that finding as well for that case being case number why a zero three three five three much later which is five one ninety eight and my argument all the way through this is how these cases have merged together are they separate cases are they final are they the same case are they do cases it seems to me that they've got to be separate in the state cases freed of course not for you