fred mcgee in this case i am going to start with the discussion of the sentencing enhanced men under section three b one dollar and i think what we have in this case is a difference between what the government and judgment then what we call speculation there really is not very much evidence about the relationship between the parties involved and in this case  freddie was caught red handed with one hundred grams of heroin and we had one witness who was in the car describing exactly how that happened but other than that we really don't have any information very classy work that  beyond that we just don't know anything but the district court found that this enhanced on the fly for two reasons one was that mr ruby ran however badly a minneapolis offshoot of this chicago operation know if we have a number of customers we don't know all of the employees a number of people that sell his guns for him that is probably on like the evidence we have that one hundred grams of heroin the most 's the difference in the sentencing it's about a year at the original sentencing he was looking at ninety to two hundred and fifteen months on remand you'd be looking at seventy seven to ninety six months so it's a but i get your point it is within the lower range let me let me turn to the question of allocution there was never an invitation here for mr mcgee to speak on  mr mcgee say that he wanted to say something which he didn't have the opportunity to say because of the district judges intervention yes he wanted the opportunity to have his own interrupted time to i'm asking a somewhat different question is there something concrete some information that he wanted to provide or some plea he wanted to make that he did not have the opportunity to do that information is not in the record i don't have the doctors just choice it was easy for him were you to say here's what i would have said if he'd let me if the judge would let me but i just want to be sure that there does not there is not some concrete thing that mcgee said i wanted to tell the district judge personally invite the defendant to speak however he did personally address the defendant as required under the rule of criminal procedure thirty two  honor i do acknowledge that there certainly was a discussion or conversation between the judging that and the defense and i think that the judge was doing his best to make sure that the record adequately represented medication i think i think the judge came in wanting to render a sentence below the guideline range i think he wanted to make sure that the sentence adequately reflected the medication presented and so i think that's why the  states versus roll does does make the point that rule thirty two really doesn't provide for his script it doesn't tell district courts what to say during the allocution and i do think that the judge and i agree judge calmly as an outstanding judge and i think he i think he cares about the defense and i think he wanted to make sure that the that the record adequately reflected the mitigation and i think he i think he certainly it is best to make that happen regarding your question about evidence of other drivers we do know that the defendant lived in minneapolis he traveled down chicago want a regular basis every couple of weeks in fact and he did that over the course of many years so he may not have been picking up a large amount of drugs but he made up for that in the frequency of his trips to chicago and we do know that his girlfriend charity schaefer accompanied him on several of these trips to chicago and we do know that charity shaffer had a more involved relationship they were or girlfriend because in a recorded jail call after their arrest the defendant contacted charity shaffer and actually asked her to collect outstanding debts from about six different people so i would argue that that is more than simply just a boyfriend girlfriend relationship that that is one of the many factors that i think judge calmly considered when trying to determine whether he could make a commonsense judgment that there was a hierarchy and that the defendant had some control over the subordinates alone now and to continue on the st the st issue provides for this enhancement and the defendant received the lowest level and handsome and two levels under subsection c the district there's no direct definition of what a leader or an organizer but application note for provide several factors that the court can consider but united states versus house tells us that these factors are not prerequisites in fact they should be used to the extent that they help  district court judge make a straightforward determination whether a defendant was a leader or an organizer and united states versus house united states or part of the united states  mahaffey they tell it a little differently they say the factor should support a common sense judgment i think the the defendant calls the speculation in points and to individual facts and claims that these facts are more speculation you refuse them with blinders on he's reviewing them in their individual capacity but when you review them collectively they certainly do support a commonsense judge so in addition to ms shaffer we know that on january st two thousand and eighteen the defendant was in chicago he met with charles mcmillan and he picked up a  malays terrible he decided where those drugs were going to be hidden inside his girlfriend's the ickle it shows the hide behind the glove compartment and we also know that he had a problem he needed someone to help him drive the drugs back to minneapolis so he directly recruited terry glasby and he indirectly recruited wayne frazier we also know that he paid mr frazier for his services so there was an employer employee relationship there when they were stopped and arrested mr frazier meet the defendant and mr mcmillan engaged in a number of recorded jail calls and during those jail calls  mcveigh the defendant was reprimanded by mister mcmillan for not doing his job mr mcmillan reprimanded the defendant defendant because he failed to manage wayne frazier and make sure that he didn't speed on the way back so your honour's when you look at all of the facts collectively they certainly do support a commonsense judgment and it's more than just  speculation i see that my time is coming up so i'd like to briefly address the last issue raised by the defendants i think all the parties can agree that this is a relatively minor issue  that the government does concede there was a minor miscalculation of the defendant's criminal history points however this had absolutely no effect on his criminal history score is advisory guideline range or his sentence and there is nothing in the record that supports the defendant's argument that it somehow affected the three thousand five hundred and fifty three analysis conducted by judge connelly so therefore the government considers   government's argument the government focus is now on appeal on charity shaper she was not a subject of fact finding out of any sort of litigation in this very court maybe she was a conspirator with  coconspirator maybe she occupied the same level maybe she was an innocent you know i think you know it's just not in the record that we don't think it would be appropriate for the court to affirm the unhandsome on that basis otherwise i think i've cover everything in my briefs so i will and thank you thank you very much counsel the case has taken under advisement and the court will be in re