but the car stopped quickly transitioned into an investigative seizure to determine because of the smell of marijuana coming from the bus because the up there slacked particular i suspicioned that mr haynes was involved in the use or possession of marijuana the him not let him leave the scene and order him off the bus law enforcement needed to fish and reasonable suspicion that he was involved in using the marijuana that was smelled on the bottom part of that i think is really true but i thought footnote explicitly stated we're not holding that one force an obvious errors are allowed to pull a passenger out of the bus and investigate them for a different crime than was the subject of the traffic stop was very limited to just ordering a passenger out of the vehicle coming on and i think it's important to really analyze the back and forth that happened as mr haines was ordered off the bus mr haines before he was even ordered off the bus tried to ask if he could leave and was told no which i think is i would disagree that they were allowed to pull him off the bus i understand that generally passengers can be ordered out but this really wasn't a traffic stop anymore and then the and the henderson case cited in our brief from the  even though the traffic stop had occurred and they were looking at the bus driver's information at the point that mr haynes says well can i leave and they said no and then he asked when he was ordered down he was immediately saying i don't consent to any search and law enforcement officer saying well there's mail on the bus at the same time mr haines can see another individual who had just been pulled off the bus subject to an intrusive press and then he repeatedly tries to say i consent and the officers asking him questions will do you have anything illegal on you so it at this point it's not just ordering somebody off the path out of the car because for safety reasons as is often the case and traffic stops under when relying on the principal in maryland versus wilson this is just simply different that he was required to remove anything from his pockets or it was he wasn't told to remove from your pockets but it was clear that a search was coming and th a situation that i think it's similar to here and that and then eventually did not consent to a search because law enforcement officers and said well we're being a canine unit and and then eventually when asked if they could search the individual stated very clear to mr haines that he was going to be searched and that it was with these three that was a clear indication you were going to be served so there was no direct statement like that but the circumstances and the back and forth indicate that a search was going to happen direct no you're being searched no there is no consent when it's clear from the situation in the back and forth and just the circumstances of this interaction that he was going to be searched and that was he didn't have a choice he couldn't refuse and it was in that pitiful so even though there wasn't that direct statement i position is that in even the district court acknowledge it's clear what was happening here and mr haynes was clearly going to be searched under the going back to the initial seizure there was insufficient evidence that mr haynes was using marijuana and looking at these cases with requiring requiring particular suspicion when you've got multiple people it seems to be on a spectrum but the hallmark is always reasonable multiple people in the car and you're not sure who is either engaged in drug trafficking or whatever it may be but if there's you know not very many people that it's proper for law enforcement officers to seize all of those people at the end  spectrum you have the your bar case which is where everyone is in a bar you don't really have a reason to suspect the people in the bar but they do know that someone there is engaged in drug trafficking i position is that these circumstances far more in line with your ba and that this is a party bus this is kind of like a bond we officers thirty people in the spot it's not like a smaller confined situation like you had in sites where people you know know each other there might be engaged in the same activity this is a larger group of people where they might not know each other and even if they do smell marijuana doesn't indicate that everyone is involved and everyone knows what's happening so because of that this association argument that the government makes we serve as weak and also that the video itself mr haines his actions he's looking around he picks up a water bottle that doesn't rise to any indication that he's using marijuana so if they know oh i do briefly want to touch on the sentencing issue  the district court abused discretion in sentencing here because it punished mr haynes for asserting his right to trial and i acknowledge that it's quite clear to the circuits case law that defendants can get a benefit for pleading guilty and that the guidelines account for this but th circuit case of the th circuit case aside in our brief acknowledged that a line can be crossed and it's important that district court judges when they're sentencing someone don't indicate or appear that they're punishing someone for exercising a constitutional right call please the court counsel like this quick i will focus on the two issues that she focused on the search and the sentencing issue although of course would answer any questions the court has about the issues that are raised in this appeal this traffic stop and the subsequent events took a total of about eight minutes as indicated by the district court that was based on the district court's review of the officers  video of the as a district court an observer what why that matters to them for safety well it matters in that the district court indicated that the officers did not some kind of a coerced search produce evidence whether it happened in thirty seconds or thirty minutes then really matter  while they were contacting the passengers and contacting the drivers driver of the bus they were also had the right to investigate the additional criminal activity that  in this record and then is made also in the iowa proceedings that were taken into consideration by judge rose focused on the activities with effect mr haines and there was  government's position is that the officer st had reasonable suspicion mr i'm having a lot of trouble from your brief distinguishing this from a bar there are three or made no justice in that it indicative of criminal conduct he made no movement that might suggest an attempt to conceal he said nothing of a suspicion that but but but our defendant looked around outside the window and stuff judge found that the this was beyond normal nervous i think as well with the way she phrased it when she made her ruling she found the officers testimony that the defend  as well as the review of the videos although that it was dark until the videos can't don't show everything that officer harden testified about in the district judge acknowledged but if this was and again example led them to believe that this group of gang affiliated yes but these this group the only bunch on the party bus there's no indication that there was anybody else on the party bus u finding they were all gangster here not that i can't not to the contrary i think not to the contrary would be the way they are you know it just doesn't make sense to me first of all i can't believe a gang of twenty five or well those are the circumstances that my no wonder so you have then then if if i'm right the record doesn't permit doesn't create an inference or permit a finding that only the gangsters were on the bus then they needed something to raise a reasonable suspicion that pains was one of the one of the gangsters and not one of the casual party goer well the reasonable suspicion was based again on the he was not free to leave until he was escorted off the bus and he and others and we well we never get to that point because he takes the marijuana out of his pocket and once he takes the marijuana out of his pocket there doesn't make somebody a gangster people i'm going to have people in the bar any borrower making furtive glances or laughing at that there and whatever well i mean as i understand what the point out of the fact that the defendant didn't plead guilty meant that he would not receive credit for acceptance of responsibility that's not of him permissible trial penalty the fact that some defendants receive benefit by pleading defendant should not have been tooling around downtown des moines with a pot with a loaded firearm that he shouldn't be anywhere near firearms given his history given the fact that he'd only been out of prison for somewhere between i think fourteen to eighteen months from his last incarceration to the time that he was arrested in this case of the government does not think that there was any sentence in error and believe that the  the trial transcript that was filed this defendant on pages fifty nine dollars through sixty that eventually everyone was ordered off the bus and patted down but turning to the idea of reasonable suspicion and whether the officers had a reasonable suspicion that mr haines was using marijuana that star did rely on this his statements can i leave and i don't consent and called it red flags that's improper to rely upon that and that's consistent with what was argued and rejected in the case part of what they had argued it was and there was a dispute in that case our position was that he had just walked away from law enforcement officers as they were walking into the laundromat the government said he was walking briskly or running away  this court was very clear that they don't take anything into account with someone just walking away from officers because at that point they're free to leave and so it shouldn't have any bearing in this courts or any course of terminations of whether someone i thought he was nervous and there was furtive movements but there's a video here in a video here which clearly details what what happens and that there wasn't right of movements they pulled off the individual that they thought was shoving things under the seat and they thought was passing something to someone else and had the marijuana that person is the individual they thought had furtive movements when asked at the suppression hearing well what was he doing the only examples of nervousness were he was looking around which everyone was many passengers on the bus were asking why did you stop us what is happening it's consistent with the situation you have when multiple officers are surrounding a bus and the other action that he took that indicate any kind of nervousness or that an individual might be involved and marijuana usage and consistent with the idea of pulling him off just because one force an officer pulled everyone off it in just order question for you is what was what was the th amendment violation before he emptied his pockets if if getting everyone off the bus was ok you're kind of reduced to well they made their conversation made him think he was going to look in your back like if there's a situation or individuals that are looking your chalk and if the defendant went back and open up the truck i was told start even though the defendant is the person taking the action to allow that search to happen the search is still happening because the