because there was inadequate proof that it's conduct resulted in a threat of death and i think more critically in this case on the record there was no finding by the district court that his conduct resulted in a threat of death finding that whatever statement was made plus whatever additional conduct or other words there might have been made in in the context they were made actually resulted in a threat of death instill in a reasonable teller victim the threat of death has to be ordinary circumstances or something along those lines right it has to be ordinary circumstances signed up again under ordinary circumstances could be a threat of death right could be correct but what recorded in an interview that the probation officer had with the victim after the event which she mentions of page one twenty four of the record and in that interview the probation officer  felt threatened missed a day of work and did avail herself of counselling offered by her work in that specific in the report of that interview and i believe that the interview is also recounted at paragraph eleven of the p is not specifically asked about the gun again no one to the sentencing her the incident report which is a reach telling my understanding a retelling of what she told the police who wrote down the incident report because there's no other evidence that there was some other victim in this case and then we have the p officers interview with the victim so what the court is referring to as the victim statements have been consistent throughout what he's referring to is that in the incident report in her statement she mentioned that my client said that he had a gun and so in one of her statement she says it was spoken to her in the incident report she says that it was actually in the note of theirs and then there's no other evidence sufficiency of the proof year that the district court assumed as a matter of law that this was all that was required that the statement i have a gun is all that is required but the way that we read jennings you know i have a guy that was mistaken in reading chinese thinking that was sufficient in and of itself and was required to make some additional findings i guess nearly circumstances i guess number one do you think that the e the objections in the record are the answer of record page ninety six and ninety seven page one twenty six and page one thirty and in each of those points where counsel objet it's sufficiency of whether the the proof of whether the statement was made is what was being argued to the letter it satisfies the next level actually your honor and additionally under jennings there's no there's no question that the statement does satisfy that evidence needed to instill a threat of death in an ordinary reasonable teller absent some type of circumstance extraordinary circumstance that would deprive the words i have a gun of their ordinary and expected meaning and there was absolutely no evidence of exceptional circumstances in fact the defendant in this case  i just agree with that your honor the judge clearly made a finding to suppress findings that your honour's already cited to the excerpt of record on page one thirty one beginning at line three and he first makes the express finding that certainly the statement was made that he talked about the statement being consistent in the teller's signed statement in the incident report and he says that he finds being transmitted is appropriate he also went on to discuss at length  motion for a downward departure and he denied that but it was clear that the judge was as are sizing his judgment here he did not feel bound in any way he said the imprint in has meant is appropriate under these circumstances and now finding his in context before sentencing the probation officer had recommended that he be enhanced for possession of a gun so that's how it was objected to defense counsel on page twenty seven twenty eight of the record says were objecting to possession and brandishing