hundred shiz actions that are not drug trafficking i e it punishes knowingly or intentionally in actual or constructive possession of any controlled substance at the quantities between four and fourteen gra said there is no intent to distribute in statute and what he pled to was both any information with which he was charged and in the judgment of conviction no allegation in either the information or the judgment of conviction that this gentleman intended to traffic in the substance of substance excuse me now under the guidelines the guideline i pretty clear under the application not to a one point two application one b i mean that drug trafficking fans and i will leave out the part that actually deals with drug trafficking and go to the part that says the possession of a controlled substance ok he needs that part he did have possession of a controlled substance but it goes on to say with the intent to manufacture possession of twenty or more grams which is seven times the minimum amount under the nevada statute this was the georgia statute section sixteen dash thirteen thirty one they found there twenty eight or more grams was the incredible and of the intent to distribute there's been no case i just found that similar in nevada as a matter of fact i cited two us versus the neatest which dealt with another nevada statute and are asked for fifty three point three three seven point one and the reason that the court there found that he did intend to traffic was because it was possession for the purpose of sale and found they were very comfortable with the fact that was the language of the statute yes well that was the title of the  so you go to what he was convicted of what he pled to and again no intent just possession of four to fourteen grams now we all kno state law because the application of federal legislation is nationwide and at times the federal program would be impaired if state law word control i see i am on the yellow light i'd like to reserve but i'll come back to honor we said that these statutes overbroad did not discuss going to any great detail as to why it's overbroad no explanation judgment given at the district court level took a look at it and said council seems to be  and shut case would you agree while this august a minute on what i've previously stated and that was it that now that we're here on appeal we go into the greater detail of over why it's overbroad and why it's not i agree that there is nothing in the the taylor stated is that when you're looking at the state statute does it mean there's include conduct that goes beyond what is in the statute and i don't believe that or excuse me conduct that is and even though it is not spent specified in the statute the nevada statute mirrors what happened in georgia in that there is no their intent to distribute is not discussed at all and while i guess taylor's not started a taylor analysis the taylor analysis is somewhat done because they do discuss hey we don't have intent to distribute does list in the statute however georgia has drawn the line on the line is the thing is in georgia the what the government is really having to rely on is that what we have is that this is not charged as as a simple possession is charged as trafficking is there are no simple possession just as a matter of just as a matter of a matter of logic in that because the way the statute is set out the the the first felt the first element it is basically it has to be at least for granted just and  is four grams so if so anything below it would be a completely different statute in this case we have someone whose it once they reach four grams or four to believe it's ten grams fo is that they and it breaks down to to a punishment and it's excuse me it's not fourteen grams is four grams or more but less than fourteen gives that gives a category b felony for fourteen or more but less than twenty eight and then the third is for twenty eight more for a fork for class a felony instead of batter and but anyway that all falls under the statute for traffic tand the that's where that's where i have i guess that's what i guess that's where i'm swimming upstream now in the i'm when i'm having to rely on using has no effect is independent from the other part of their system or who knowingly intentionally or actually constructive possession that doesn't sing about trafficking selling yes you are and that's and that's the that's that's that's really the where where i'm stuck at and it's a three or at that or is where i'm just asking the court to follow along the same arguments for the same theory or you're in possession of this greater amount if you're possession of a lesser amount you're charged with a lesser statute but because because we consider if you know if we don't catch you doing the bio the sale or hauling across state lines clarify that the other thing i wanted to say was that he then the attorney below did speak to taylor taylor has been around since one nine hundred ninety i think everybody when they talk about the supreme court case of taylor marcos and taylor and a little more detail anyway the thing is is that this was a sixteen level enhanced meant that should not have been under the guideline all no but they're still it didn't overall review of whether the court follow the guidelines properly and here he did not and so i don't even know if we get to booker because this is the strict did he follow  court has found that it's very post booker but he never did thirty five fifty three analysis or anything of that nature he just said under the lindo your argument is specious to the defense attorney and that's why i say  what the guidelines say now you strictly follow the guy he followed the guidelines but he was aware of booker but he did not discuss booker thank you lester's other questions the case is the method i think you will hear arguments united