you've addressed first a few brief comments to the question of the security level cap that we raise and the government attempts to justify the fact that the three level cap just point out to the court that these additional adjustments that would apply to narcotics offenders apply in a fairly narrow group of cases and it doesn't remove the fact that in most and not mandatory how don't you lose your equal protection argument i don't think there's a lunatic because the this record is still supposed to come to conclusion as to what the guideline level is so the courts are still supposed to apply the guidelines what were kind words that come from that comes from booker this disposed to look at the guidelines of german with their guy but they're purely advisory at this point i mean it's purely advisory although i can assure the court that in my experience that advisory is giving a whole lot of weight cap under the guidelines should apply to th i mean i can truly make that argument to the courts and i made it before and when the guidelines were mandatory the judge rejected it i think i'm a little bit farther ahead of judge real knows that in this court's opinion that thirty a low level cap should apply under any rule of fairness or equal protection to this defendant as well as  by the son of his landlord to go out and help load or unload some buckets off of trucks and then to a warehouse he was a forklift operator he went and spent a couple hours boxes a few days later he's been told by this codefendant into going to the warehouse counting the buckets and then taking a call from somebody in chicago and telling them how many buckets are there no explanation of where the evidence is coming from the conclusions are coming from and put that on the record with alcoa on his own initiative stealing an obligation simply professional obligation to the court to set forth what the foundation  the judge real did not grant our objections to that evidence or permit us to cross examine the sources of the evidence is beyond me but when you're talking about giving somebody one hundred eight sentence surely the court has an obligation the government has an obligation to not rely upon this sort of highly pleased to read information i mean statements like there were a bunch of telephone numbers on the pens and cell phone which are from known drug deals we don't know what telephone numbers they're talking about we don't know how they're concluding that their known drug dealers were supposed to just take it face value the statement of the  this is a true statement so i i find it shocking that judge real would like that into the record the judge really wouldn't look at the government lawyer and ask him what this is he thinks he has put in that kind of information in the record without providing the foundation and i don't know why the u s attorney's office would would attempt to color the proceedings and prejudice the court five putting that kind of clearly in the civil evidence into the recor you spoke your client and he came back and there are some important distinctions in the elements of the crime here it's sufficient for him to be guilty of the crime alleged if he had reasonable cause to believe that there was a list of chemical involved it's not necessary for him to have had actual knowledge that with the chemical was involved and there's a three point three level swing depending upon whether the court finds that he had actual knowledge to pain and whether give the government proved to have actual knowledge go back i certainly will vigorously object again and i believe the courts did should make it clear that that evidence lacking any foundation should never have been offered and should not come in with support to make an of as defendants gasp alternatively the government can make an argument that of that the benefit should be taken away from narcotics and so because of that discretion at the booker's dated today there wouldn't even be a court of potentially provide your even even possible to have an equal protection claim on its face at the challenge to guidelines you know i don't think so because at the booker stage once the court has calculated the guidelines range in lenient way and court in your discretion please equal things out for me because the courts have discretion to do that it doesn't seem to me like there could ever be a situation under booker where there with anything protection violation  manufacturing process is but he didn't need to know what the manufacturing process was to know that he had something that was hot for precisely and that's why he's guilty of this offense but there's a three level there's three levels of depends upon whether the government statuses that he not only knew there was some sort of illegal substance here but he knew it was to a federal and he knew it was going to be used to make methamphetamine that he can know that without knowing how it's done so i'll be happy and i want to know if that is going to be done and not the chemical process involved well you know