number of conspiracies in the indictment he argues and we are you in our brief that there isn't one indictment to one i'm sorry there's one conspiracy indicted in this case and that the change of plea hearing he admitted the elements of that conspiracy he admitted that a conspiracy existed he  district court includes four separate conspiracies in the relevant conduct analysis and our issue is whether those conspiracies that were not admitted to at the change of plea hearing are relevant conduct to this offense they were charges percy indictment the government does argue that the and others includes all the kingship of these fears is i think that's a little too broad and that the dates include all the other acts and mr mr did not admit these things certainly at the change of plea hearing the government's factual basis doesn't mention them mr hanssen the government argues that the greater than fifty grams of madoff must have come from some of those transactions you have a response to that it's not as that's not in the record in the pre sentence report certainly there are methamphetamine that is in tribute to that is there will apart from the four transactions that they go live but you're putting it the issue is there are other evidence of methamphetamine being involved in the conspiracy not to the record now so why is it unreasonable for the court then to treat at least conspirators different time frames a substantial gaff in the time in which they were committed nothing in his admissions or in the indictment or news feed agreement indicate that he's admitting to anything else other than what's in there what's the most specific factual basis for meth is that it that he admitted to fifty grams or more other than that just the admission he admitted it in the record and you know victims and accomplices that what the guidelines require tonight and i ask you well i'm sure this i understand that the other parties in these four transactions were all prosecuted charged now with those transactions wouldn't he seem to have a pretty strong double jeopardy defense charge now after he's been convicted of those are ok have charged after being pleading guilty to this conspiracy from two thousand and seven to two thousand and fourteen i think you certainly would have an argument i don't know how strong it is because there were no admission zur findings about those other coconspirators so the question is whether it's the same offense and it's just not clear enough in the indictment that is the same offense as those i would think that i would think that this gives him a double jeopardy going to crawl drug dealing with tween two thousand and seven and two thousand and fourteen going to be a pretty powerful defense with him i think though it certainly would be a defense i would raise i'm not sure it would be successful because it's simply not spelled out in the indictment or in his admissions so i think that there would be a whole there an argu to two thousand and fourteen but there's no evidence between two thousand and seven and two thousand and one so are we looking all the way back in so long as a double jeopardy is he allowed to say anything that i did that was related to a drug conspiracy between two thousand and seven and two thousand and fourteen and i mean if that's what the court ultimately holds and of course if that happens which i assume is very unlikely at this point then you would have that but i don't think that there's enough there to make an absolute and argued what's included in relevant conduct and that's what happened in this case and he argued that that was not included in the conspiracy is relevant conduct part of another issue in this case is the  findings are a little off about why this was included the court found that isn't jointly undertake an activity which is actually different section of the guidelines then the common scheme or plan which applies to the defend of conduct where as an jointly undertaking activity would apply to all his co conspirators conduct and it really bad and so we argue that the district court did not make adequate findings regarding this relevant kind of calculation because they were not involved in this conspiracy charge in this case that that's that's the language from the objection that's not yeah that's the language that i don't have quotes around it so it's probably not a direct quote i do know that it was not argument it certainly could have been but that's one of the things that concerns me here because it looks at least it looks to me from this record is if the fence counsel who's trying to finesse a tightrope walk by making as bare bones an objection as possible so as not to put at risk the acceptance of responsibility i understand that but i have a little trouble by then criticizing the district judge for not saying enough and detailed findings about this kind of bare bones don't don't screw up the acceptance address meant to kind of  it it is a tight rope to walk when when you're trying to talk about accepting responsibility and the objections are minimal and particularly as to the other enhancements as to the drug amounts it is a little bit more fleshed out calculations so the government's response is certainly directed to what we're arguing now and everybody relied on the written responses and based on that the district court i think at least should have used the right guideline section to make the relevant conduct findings when she did so if if i could've done it differently of course i would have you know i obviously as an appellate attorney i preserve i like preserved for record but you know we have what we have and i think that in distinguishing them from the rest of the objections this one was made more specifically and the rest of them and the government addressed it and the court di listed dates going from two thousand and seven all the way to two thousand and fourteen and said that the use of ins happened st clair county illinois and elsewhere and listed the defendant in this case i hope all that as well as others it said that other people known and unknown to the grand jury were involved it said that the conspiracy involved three different types of drugs cocaine heroin and methamphetamine and then it broke out drug amount of that some of the different defendants were responsible for in their involvement in the conspiracy the defendant's contention on appeal is essentially that he wants to carve out just from two thousand and fourteen on and say i'm good for that part of the conspiracy but i'm not good for anything else think the clearest reason why that doesn't work is the point the judge hamilton has already referenced and that's the admission regarding methamphetamine the indictment specifically alleged that the defendant's involvement in the conspiracy was fifty gra of methamphetamine and he agreed to that and his plea he agreed that that was an element of the offense and that his involvement in the conspiracy didn't bowl at least fifty grams of meth the only meth in the case comes from some of these things that are now in dispute paul barnett was someone who was being supplied by michael poet back in two thousand and twelve he's the basis it was more than one trans actually he's the basis of some of the evidence of methamphetamine in the case as well as the the deal involving marcus lewis and jose garcia with the seizure of cocaine and methamphetamine that was ultimately bound for st clair county and for the defendant that was in two thousand and twelve so basically if you were to accept the defendant's contention that i'm only good for two thousand and fourteen on and only with the people who are specifically named there just is no basis for his admission that the case involved over fifty grams of  so i think that that can hopefully settle it that the case law i believe is on the united states a side savages the case that says when she pled guilty and there's no allegation in this case that the was unknowing or that it was coerced or that to defend it was not represented by counsel which you've done that you've waive your right to complain about what's in the indictment later on your story that there would be a double jeopardy problem given the breadth of the indictment if you were to go back and charge these separately i hadn't thought about that specifically until you brought it up your honor but it certainly seems like there would be you describe this is in your brief as an unbroken series of drug deals which frankly seem to me like a stretch given the evidence that we have given years and months between so you can see things i understand you may suspect he's been running this operation been in your territory for a long time but in terms of the evidence that we have available so do the evidence that the facts are all in the p s r the fact that we're allowed a rod for this proceeding and that evidence to show as you said the defendant had been a founder of this group all the way back in the early eighty's or ninety's and that this had been going on for a long time looking specifically at it what is in the p s r in terms of and i think this would be properly under the guideline analysis as of whether this is a continuing course conduct i think that if this is all part of the charge conspiracy we don't necessarily have to go there but one of the guideline analysis of whether this is a continuing course of conduct you have alan henry who is one of the main coconspirators he's the one who started getting cocaine from paulette back in zero seven they started using v diaper methods lack of a better time for the cocaine is hidden on the person from an out of town source the cocaine is brought back using that method to paulette and in southern illinois where he used his network to resell it to others including henry from zero seven to ten henry dropped out of the picture for a while he went to prison for drug dealing he came back and rejoined the conspiracy once he got out of prison in thirteen or fourteen so you have a a a good series from seven to ten the events involving brim by the time you get there henry is back out buying cocaine and heroin from the defendant and it all ends with the train trip with the various relatives and friends coming back from texas loaded down with cocaine  diapers so we can't come for every day between two thousand and seven and two thousand and fourteen but i don't think it's unfair to say that this was an unbroken chain of grumbling there's there's good evidence in the record to support that characters ation so i would did the methamphetamine in this case would set the base offense level on the guidelines at thirty six that's the same as the court found with everything there were other enhancements that drove the b the only basis for that is the transactions involving barnett and lewis and garcia as a fall back from that this is a guideline issue on appeal but this that was not a guideline sentence and it was not a guideline driven sent this wasn't a single count where you record relevant conduct and that runs it up the chart in the court has to decide well is that really fair or should i be looking at last something along those lines this is a multi count indictment as to just this defendant all sorts of things are alleged a lot more than just this conspiracy the guidelines were life but the case was pastored in a way that there was a mandatory minimum of twenty the government agreed to recommend twenty five so that the range that the parties had staked out was twenty twenty five the district court properly acknowledged that she understood the guidelines for life and that she was going to you know take that as advice but this wasn't a case where she's saying well i'm thinking about life but i'm going to go down these many levels or i'm going to go over these many categories you know a more traditional guideline analysis this was a case where she looked at the range that had been staked out listen to the parties thirty five fifty three arrogance and said for these reasons something more than the minimum is necessary so i understand that most the time if you got the guidelines wrong there would be an error one of the difficulties in this case is that the methamphetamine did become the tail that wags the dog it skyrocketed the offense level in this case and for the lack of connection between the methamphetamine and a conspiracy admitted to  which is a gap of you know a year without if you know a year or nine months to a year that's an issue and continuing this to be a common scheme or plan the savage case is not on point because savage argued that none of the people named in the indictment he pled guilty to were part of his conspiracy when he should be sons that's not at all that mr paulette is arguing he's arguing that the people in the indictment are the people that are part of his fourteen i think there's a very limited connection between the prior events other than the simple fact that the indictment list of range of years so unless the court has been the questions courts