thank you yes please the court your honor michael park representing petition  went to appear before a family court hearing on a divorce proceeding and that he had gone through our security checkpoint where he was screened and well there's a standing issue to the extent that he said he just found this pouch therefore he couldn't have had much of an interest in the unit right your honor on that note we just did that the facts would show th this consent was ineffective because the security officer said that he was going to search it anyway the officer you have the right to stern around and say you know i don't think i want to go to court today and i would have been perfectly fine under the facts and circumstances mr pretzel did not feel he had a right to just turn around and leave we believe the fact sure that the security officer did  and more importantly at least in the attorney's mind the divorce lawyers of mine said that it appeared that the security officer somewhat changed to you don't if you don't let me search that you can't go into the courtroom he changed his tune to well they respected of whether you're going into the courtroom or not i'm going to search that i don't this is not according to the attorney correct yes and we believe that that evidence is the more credible evidence but the judge just i mean the trial judge heard all of this correct all the testimony from the witnesses didn't she and well the trial judge was wrong in believing a witness over another witness no word that she clearly or error in her conclusion while that and correct me if i'm wrong i don't believe there was an order to that that you know said that and in fact there is part of the record that indicated that the judge had allowed the attorney to speak over objection with respect to his opinion of the security officer having a change of heart and insisting on searching i i just would like to also touch on the  for this particular crime we would submit that the probation officer had improperly group this two along with counsel one and three pursuant to three d one point included a portion of the period of time to include the period in which the june ninth two thousand and three incident occurred however when you look at the actual time period of the pertinent superseding indictment all in occurred in october of two thousand and four some four months after this initial alleged student this initial incident at the courthouse the my main point is three d one point to be the probation officer shouldn't have grouped these two cases because they're not closely related counts they don't involve the same victims and they are not connected by a common scheme or criminal objective even though the indictment was expanded to include this so if you separate them and you run an analysis for count two on just the five grams of cocaine you and this is what we like to argue with respect to counsel one and three she should receive the acceptance of responsibility talk cooperation credit there was north struction of justice our government is the credit for what i just missed that he should have received under the advice you guidelines so if you if you allow him to have all of these adjustments to his base level france would have been thirty four based on the quantity u the court raised mr prieto by saying that he had just found this pouch and did not know the contents of the pouch do not have standing he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that pouch and its contents nevertheless even if even if this court were to find that he did have standing the search was reasonable under the circumstances of district court made factual findings the district court is in the best position to make determinations of credibility and the rulings she heard from mr kim his attorney and she heard from the security guard at the wagonette security guard from the courthouse and her findings were that mr prieto even even if  if you were to take the statements of the attorney who was the only person who indicated that mr preacher had made some indication that he wanted to leave the courthouse rather than enter the courthouse just a quick look at the overall situation and the facts which were that at secondary at once the metal detector beat the security guard used the one found the pouch in and took that picture mr preach on was about to search it and before that happened mr preacher grabbed it back from him at that point the security guard advised mr prieto that he had a choice that he could do that he either had to submit to the secondary search or he can go into the courthouse and the facts are that mr prieto relinquished the pouch the pouch was searched and he went into the courthouse he had a choice he could have turned around and put that hatch in his car and he could have come back into the courthouse he didn't make that choice and those overall circumstances led the court to those facts were agreed upon agreed the turn defense counsel at trial agreed to let those facts in and in fact during the opening statement the defense counsel seemed concerned that the a u s a might go beyond what the agreement was and he objected during opening and clarify that he was fine he had no problem if the a u s a stuck with the information that he had put in his four of four being years prior to trial  certainly there may be a number of reasons why a trial counsel say that we wouldn't necessarily know what the trial strategy was but but one can imagine a situation like this where  allowing the jury to know that the defendant had admitted to certain amounts of drugs might help to trying to convince a jury that he's not afraid to admit when he does something respect to drug trafficking which was the only issue at trial in this case the other evidence that came in where were prior inconsistent statements that mr creator made during the  became apparent both to her and apparently to the trial the defense attorney for the first time that he wasn't prepared to to plead to count two and she gave him the opportunity to hold off and find out what the governor was going to do with that  two however they decided at that point to go forward with the pleas to count one and three and see what the government did the judge continued to talk to ask him questions about how to after he said he was not going to plead guilty to count no  what happened in the is that the government responded that the facts that they were prepared to prove and then she turned and said do you agree with all of those facts and he said no and i think that the following the transcript that the court asked the questions to determine whether the disagreement with the government's recitation of the facts was something that would preclude him from being of the plead guilty or if it was sometimes in those situations there's a defendant who says well yes i knew that i had five grams of cocaine in my pocket but it was in a red patch in sort of a yellow patch and she asked questions to determine what it was that his his disagreement with the facts were two which talks about the substantially you know continuing course of conduct i would point out as i did in my brief that to the one point two subsection deal specifically address cases involving drug cases and specifically lists to the one point one which is a subset guideline section for drug you know to determine the often several for drug cases  and and so the guidelines specifically and of course the guidelines also have a conversion table to show if you have multiple counts of conviction involving different site sorts of drugs they are they get group for the purposes of distinguishable from this case first because in that case there's no question of standing i think the court here doesn't even need to go beyond the issue of standing because mr creator just very similarly to the defendant in the united states we've each denied that this was his property and therefore did not have standing or a reasonable expectation of privacy beyond that in in this case the district court specifically found that the the that mr preacher consented to the search that he was given the choice of leaving the courthouse he was advised you know if i if you're going to go in the courthouse i have to search this he was given that choice and he the actions that he took reveal that he made a decision to go into the hearing that he he he cared more about making sure he was at that hearing that and protecting any privacy interests that he may have had and i think the fact plane he would have not gone into the courthouse if he was given back to politics and allowed to leave we believe the facts are not like that he was demanded apology it was opened and then he yes he did and what happened he said no and i said i have to search the bag and then he gave it back to me and what did you do i searched the bag i don't have that exact section privacy with no reason then i mean for those reasons that it clearly would be and the first thank you counsel the case just argued will be submitted for decision and the court w