that's the quote we have any questions on the the jurisdictional issue in terms of the insufficiency of the evidence there was there was no question that there was a bank robber the only issue is where was the identification of the of the robber there were two people that testified that saw the robber neither one way will to identify mr brown as the person they saw in part because a robber had a rag over his face but both of them  described the robber in terms that was different side irving brown the teller described the robbers not more than six feet in slender the security guard who saw the robber leave the bank and then outside  said the robber was six feet tall skinny twenty five to thirty two and mr mr brown is six foot three at least three inches taller than they both described he weighs about two hundred  linking another suspect or someone other than mr brown just there was three things that points to my grief one is that there was a hat that was found in connection with the robbery that showed d n a from three different people and none of those matched mr brown second there was a fingerprint found on the outside of the driver's door handle that did not match mr brown there i mean there's always going to be some evidence that wholly implausible and he testified and therefore the jury could find the opposite well i think the court does have the correct standard it's whether any rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt but i don't i don't believe hi testimony was totally implausible he was that a crack addict who don't necessarily make the best judgment he testified that the case the fake alone the truck to crack cocaine dealer for an hour or include beyond a reasonable doubt that his version with one true do we have a physical description in the record of v j the person who according to mr brown and did the robbery conclusion that just because a court departs up word doesn't mean that now after booker when you're looking at the thirty five fifty three a factors were where the whole universe of potential facts that are relevan sentencing is a lot broader the issues are different that the that they would that the court would give the same sentence and in this case in fact there were some things presented to the judge that the judge didn't determine were sufficient for departure but he may find it to like another opportunity to talk with man and to make sure that that he understands completely what the possibilities are and if the court is considering to to give an animal i mean and eliminate me man to give me  want to make our order to make clear that you've not made a definitive request at this time i would make that request at my save my remaining time for abo it please the court thomas lin for the united states i think that the court has put the issue exactly right on the sufficiency that the defense is using the wrong case it's easy to slip over into this other motive analysis ended his discussion of that by saying the question was whether or not there is a reasonable person could conclude that mr brown's description explanation was untrue that's not the case it's whether or not the government's case is sufficient not whether they defend his case is insufficient the only other two things i'd like to say is one is this argument that the defense is made about poverty alone not being enough three case he cites goes on to say that poverty connected with drug addiction isn't enough and that's exactly what we have here mr brown admitted that he's an addict he actually bought cocaine during his explanation of events and finally on the on the amal issue it seems to the government that if you look at what judge england actually did the defendant was convicted while he was in oregon under oregon law the offense he committed here didn't count to enhance his sentence then when he came back here the sentence in oregon could not count towards making him a career offender here in california because it was committed afterwards and there's an extensive discussion  at sentencing by the prosecutor in church england about how mr brown has really gotten a break here and that if it wasn't for this disparity between the laws of the two states who would have been a career offender here and would have gotten three sixty's a life sentence and the government's argument was that the court should depart upward to take account of that church england did but if you read the transcript you can see that in that he felt a little sorry for his maybe more than a little sorry f mr england and therefore did not depart upwards as much as we think he did i think under those facts and is not appropriate here because it's clear that the judge has already cut this man a break finally had to point out that in the defendant's brief the factors that he points to showing sympathy by judge england have to do with mr england's conduct in prison and the judge's hope that his time in prison will help him come out