count he also pleaded guilty to a second counts in the superseding indictment charging him with social security fraud has not previously been indicted for the a social security fraud and the government  the guidelines do not say contrary to the government's argument that in order to be eligible for the additional one point downward adjustment the guilty plea has to be timely as to  counts of what the guidelines say is that in order to be eligible for acceptance of responsibility at all the defendant has to accept responsibility as all counts in the indictment or the information  the government's argument confused with all due respect the government's argument confuses eligibility for except consider responsibility with a determination as to whether or not you should get accepted responsibility as are cowards of the question then remains as to whether or not the guilty plea was timely i would submit respectfully that that is a fact based determination which depends upon whether or not the defendant saved the government in the chords the time and expense of trial clearly in this case mr winder didn't permit the government to conservatives judicial resources and avoid preparing for trial when he of pleaded guilty to the second count in the superseding information which is not been previously indicted at all so i submit that factually mr wendler did meet the test government has conceded that the guilty plea was timely as it made this concession in the plea agreement itself moving on to the second issue the question is whether or not the court correctly determined mr fictitious social security card in the name of hazari harm apparently mr wender was part of a scheme to obtain fictitious washington state identification cards in another individual was another person michelle divined that the identification was in cindy rouse michelle the wind used this other fictitious identification on one occasion to paint five thousand dollars from a bank used a credit card a fictitious credit card been changed for her by mr weber to gain additional monies but these additional transactions did not involve any use  fictitious identification so in other words the only connection between the can of conviction and the otherwise relevant conduct is that both involve a piece of however a fictitious identification which mr wender was convicted of was never used by anyone to change any last amount from anyone it was simply found sitting in this house when has to be in order to conclude that the releve court relevant conduct of the allegedly relevant conduct is part of the same course of conduct or common scheme of plan courts look to regularity similarity and temporal proximity in this case there may have been temporal proximity because the two pieces of identification retained at the same time however there was no similarity between the count of conviction and the allegedly relevant conduct there was no regularity they did not involve in any sense of the word the same type of activity therefore we see very respectfully that the district the district court judge was correct and should be affirmed as the vote as to its first and briefly there's the issue of whether mr willis should have been awarded extra points under section three  court had an occasion to specifically apply jen and section one hundred one point one of the guidelines to a case where the defendant was claiming he should be one of the one point for time exceptions even though he had gone to trial   if there are more questions like that issue i can move to the relevant kind of issue that issue involves a very factual determination and that's why it's reviewed for care as to whether or not the conduct that mr wynn learn four there were common victims that is the false identification cards that were obtained from the corrupt department of licensing and fully were all state of alaska employees so they were coming b name but with credit card information that was supplied to her in fact manufactured kind of credit card supplied to her by mr winter all of that is part of a pattern and i think the guideline cometary me to the word that you don't get the third point and so it's our position that the board case was incorrectly decided based upon the precedent that four sided and it should not be followed by this court the issue with respect and i'm not suggesting the council has done anything inappropriate but it's actually i don't think the government can now come before this court and say that the guilty pleas were not  guidelines and decided whatever that third point post sample or the facts in front of them didn't justify it presumably because they're going to try once before now the government me there's nobody else around to defend the district court's position i'm not sure that it's unfair for the government to say well we made the factual representation we were supposed to make on that record the district court decides the law doesn't justify the third point and now they're in a position to to try to hold the district court's decision i concede that we're dealing with a legal question legal question here is simply whether or not just record correctly applied the guidelines and we contend that it did not with respect to the other issue counsel has clearly stated that we did not there's no evidence to discount the conviction had anything to do with the broader conspiracy based upon this record it's just as likely for the district court to have concluded that he may have obtained this one piece of identification for some purpose completely unrelated to the broader conspiracy and the only connection between the camera conviction and the allegedly relevant conduct