be dismissed and i know that counsel and i have a my initial take on this case went one way and then when i studied the authorities that with the other we used to have a procedure in alaska i don't know if they still do where we could plead somebody out to get us suspended in physician of sentence and then a person behaved during their period of suspension the charges would be dismissed very much like this system so far difference was under alaska law you were convicted until you've been sentenced so if the person got an s a s and behaved himself he had no conviction at the end of it here the new mexico supreme court has said you don't have to get sentenced to be convicted once you pleaded guilty and had your plea accepted you can be convicted and they said that even though the charges later get dismissed under this procedure that you've described nevertheless the person has been convicted i think that was for purposes of their three strikes law so it would seem to me that we are bound by new mexico law to say that full aereo had the conviction of my missing anything there believe you are your honor because we need to of course recall that eighteen u s c nine twenty one requires us to look at a body of law there and the supreme court in one of the cases i sided directly say i had the best time to paraphrase it is someone who sentence has been to far and it's later dismissed eligible to  possess firearms and the answer that i gave was yes the new mexico attorney general has considered the question and has said that it was in your way i'm sorry he went your way but i thought it was pretty clear that when the attorney general says one thing in the supreme court says the other the supreme court winds but the supreme court if you're referring to the new mexico supreme i have only a grasp and this is where when i use cases in fact to wind deals with can it be used for her bench war criminal purposes and under new mexico law the authority is yes the dismissed case can be used in the habitual offender register as a sex offender is an independent obligation that is not defeated by the subsequent dismissal of a charge that has no relevance to the dismissal order and that order said these charges against you are dismissed you are relieved these obligations using the old concept of words main what should meaning dismissal if we were talking to someone and we said well i had a case against me but it was just missed i don't think anyone in the common language usage would take that to maintain your are the cases hold only that civil rights must be substantially wisco or those three rights and these are in the excerpt of record in the attorney general citations  note that upon dismissal of the right to possess firearms the right to vote the right to hold office are restored the district court in its opinion said well again paraphrasing his right to vote was not restored well there actually is no case in the government cited no case in new mexico that even deals with the question of restoration of the right to was it the absence of any case saying it is or isn't does not mean it isn't and this is where the district court or in that regard it hell well there's nothing saying his right to vote was confrontation right the government again makes a somewhat what i will only call puzzling claim we entered into an agreement for a conditional the preserve the right to appeal the district court's ruling that a taped statement that would be their case it would be testimonial in that it would comprise their case  that mr blair yells all the weapon to a person he knew to be a foul on the government of sorts and it's brief that the issue is moot because the evidence was not presented in trial obviously any conditional pl decayed that he would give a cautionary instruction which in itself is somewhat hard to understand the judge's reasoning this would have been the government's case the government m proper or assertion in any way that their case would be proved by anything except this tape that i could not cross examined with a weapon a witness whose i did not even represent record is that there was that they're going to put the probation officer on the honor the only reference to a probation officer and i might be mistaken but it was an a trial grainy filed with court the morning of the jury trial in which a probation officer was listed but again i thought they were going to use the tape to prove what  truth well that leaves the government with evidence from bill areas on the map that he sold the gun to this guy but as for whether the guy is a felon the government at that point has no evidence of it and it's just as evidence that  selling a gun to a felon which isn't the same thing and then the government has to prove it's a felony and it was going to use the probation officer to do it well beyond goes beyond that it goes to what took place behind a the walls of a house where under the government's theory this gentleman mr chandler went in there had a conversation with someone who he represented to the police  represented that it was mr valeri out who was the other party in this conversation well they have to prove foundation the judge reserved the right to exclude the tape for that ground he said he would give a living thing instruction but your honor the reality is that the government's case against mr valarie is comprised of the statements of mr chandler there on the type that the government elected at the last moment to use instead of producing mr chandler whose record could be cross examined whose motivation in this matter whether or not he might have been cooperating with the police what his inducement what he was getting out of any of them areas of things that i was denied the opportunity to confront and this comes back it simply is a confrontation  it was in the context though of a state that restores civil rights with a certificate not with not by apparation of law on that if you restoration with a certificate we followed convicted and that also the rights have been restored a reservation in the court in a corner of the states you know code cannot be the basis of a federal prosecution and state must tell the felon point blank that weapons are not kosher there could be kind of a lurking due process problem if the felon didn't have fair notice that he's not allowed to have a gun now parent doesn't specifically cover this case because it's  certificate state rather than an operation of lost a new mexico's an operation of law as stated at least for purposes of this case and the problem that i have is under new mexico law it seems clear that number one the cause was dismissed at number two under padilla a new mexico supreme court case the manager still convicted for purposes of a betrayal criminal number three many of his civil rights are resort we don't know exactly which ones aren't the one that most people are most aware of the right to vote looks like he's got a substantial restoration of civil rights number for the attorney general tells them that you can have guns as far as the state of new mexico is concerned  it seems like although that easterbrook opinion and haron don't exactly apply because there's no certificate the reason for those the opinions had that claim been rains below the government would have provided information and support that at the time of the occurrence or arrest he admitted to officers that he had been convicted of burglary and that he had only been relieved from his duties on probation convictions that are trained in violation of the constitution may not be used in firearm proceedings like ronnie counsel in that case was in effect b because he had multiple represent asians big difference layer the order dismissing this case did not use that particular language so i did with approval in last case simply because lasky dealt with a  conviction they use as does each state or different system for setting aside convictions so it again is also irrelevant that our dismissal order doesn't contain that particular language  e brother's case the government took one sentence out of there are saying there is nothing to suggest before all or just mess all should result in dismissal of the charges well there is something  statutes annotated thirty one guys twenty days after a period in relevant parts is after a period of deferment the court shall and it uses the word shall enter a dismissal of the criminal charges not of no longer subject to supervision under probation but shall enter an order dismissing the charges  mootness issue i think the court was also puzzled by that the case that the government cited dealt with a case where there was a suppression hearing the court ruled the evidence was admissible the defendant proceeded to trial in front of a jury the government for whatever reason chose not to put that evidence and so at the conclusion of the trial and a finding of guilt on appeal it wasn't because it wasn't used it wasn't a conditional plea which the terms of which in this is that excerpt of record page eighty six we reached an oral agreement while the judge was in chambers looking are listening to the t set out this is an excerpt of record eighty six i set out the terms of the agreement that i reached with the government and that's why i've you know obviously an agreement that we would do this and the court i asked mr that's the court has questions i am over my time thank you