garcia that was a very narrow decision that did not articulate exactly what the definition of illegally or unlawfully in the united states should be in that case garcia admitted to being in the country illegally additionally he did not apply for relief until two days after he had been indicted for possession of a firearm he had not indicated that he was on bond so i think factually it's different from the position that mr problem in this case finds himself and again does not go to what the cases are looking into whether a person has permission to remain in the united states and one of the things that they're looking at is whether the individual had permission and again one of the things that they turned  them and hernandez itself lays out the legal principle that should be applied in all cases does a person have permission to be here so that they are not going to be deported and in this case mr brown was to use was given a on pursuing ten immigration court where he could not be deported he was given permission to remain in the united states throughout the duration of his immigration proceedings are limited and of the nature of the proceedings he was at the time when he was released on the bond  if he made a showing that he was not a danger to the community that one of the things that the courts oftentimes take into consideration this is not on the record but whether the person has potential relief available to him and in fact  any possibility of relief should not be deported by an immigration officer but then the next day say oh for purposes of prosecution under one twenty thirty five now he's illegal so i think that in itself is a start and i think released on bond is  that would not be the same as what you're talking about here on bond with that you know the right no permission to read or they just lock him up so if they say well you can stay if you post a bond wasn't about the same as you can stay as long as you  could do so he can continue supporting his life he was given the permission to remain united states and i think of the class of the condition of stopping for perceiving if we haven't posted the bond he had been gone you know your honor even if  on but you stop the proceedings and stop the custody and so i don't see the bond which simply puts him out on the street as opposed to put him in a cell he's really permission to stay in the united states and more than being in the that well i think it is different from being honest and this is tell him that he is again told he can remain in the united states outside no one in the south and immigration judge made the determination that he did not have to remain in that cell that he didn't merit being out that he was not a danger to the community and the responding to me that he could possibly be eligible for relief and in fact was even released so i think that it's different from someone so we have aggravated sons who are not even given the opportunity to ask her bond because we know that there are possibilities of relief are almost zero so they're not even released on parole who granted the veil and immigration judge your honor and it's i believe it's our ninth   and i'm not saying that we should make it illegal present law whole all i'm saying is that pursuant to just for nine twenty two g five purposes he was present he was present in the united states with authorization he was given  spawned by immigration officials by the immigration judge and so i do think that the fact that he could not be deported at that point in time is another important point that should be looked to and if i ma i know that was one of the factors that was taken into consideration but they've never been selves that being on bond is not sufficient i think there was an issue as to whether the person had been officially removed or not that was an alternate argument taint tenth circuit as is hernandez hernandez was not really addressed in detail in a tante and hernandez itself says that one of the things to look to is whether a person can be deported or not and that's what i'm saying why  for personal protection or protecting their marijuana crop as it was in gavel and in lamb the individual own the gun for his personal protection and that was that was what was on the record here i think the evidence  connected to gun violence i think one of the things that that the government points to the fact that there is evidence that mr pyne one of the firearms and i like to address that briefly is that the key to the case is that the government cite says that they deny the adjustment because the individual had sold or pond certain guns and i think it's important to look at that miller the third circuit case that person which actually convicted on stalley without a license so in that and that was given for the actual number of guns i do want to indicate that that issue was never presented to a jury and there was never any finding beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury and the district court just based the upward adjustments based on statements made by requests should be allowed to determine what should be made of those statements are not raising i take it then the issue of whether blakeley applies to the question of sporting purpose arguably your honor i would say that it does apply i think a little considered to be in the country with authorisation at the point he's given up on and released onto the street that's all or arguing that for purposes of ninety three to five he is present in the country with authorization with respect  attended and then the documentation that was presented by the government that is in the e r think the final page of the e r that evidence was question even by the district court even though the district court came up with hi timeline as to when these purchases were made the district court itself stated that it didn't prove or disprove what happened it is and after the fact agent cody does think that there could have been other indications that they were sold to other people and that's in the e r and that's i believe at nine thirteen twelve fifteen it doesn't show whether in fact it was pulled back to the stores and then the other this presented all that evidence was at the sentencing hearing i think the  purposes i think that the core and other instances it goes back into that he does believe that he was using them solely for that he was actually going to the shooting range so i think the district court itself is going back and forth and it's heard putting but if we're speculating as a district court did he could have had two guns at one time and then just record itself does he had all these at the same time going to the shooting range he would have been eligible for the reduction all right thank you very much