him at that time had made no admissions concerning this rush rush and so if the theory in the grand jury was different than because of the trial the theory was that there was this  that i think that's why it's a little confusing from the record is that in the the response to that is the only way this came out was the through the fence where in this nation response to the opening that the government said why why wouldn't you know and  how booker ties into your mandatory drug treatment are you what does that have to do with what the jury found or didn't find because you know that's my understand is that because there's a book or are it should this unusual treatment there's nothing that prevented a mandatory minimum person from getting the same kind of thing that you're talking about that i'm aware but what i'm saying is that he now and do that he can now he coulda done it before with mandatory m i but i don't see how it affected one way or another by how you look around the line because under the guidelines counsel was not permitted to argue the drug use alcohol abuse issue in a favorable li because under guidelines they can only be an unfavorable light they're not ordinarily taken into consideration under five age one point six one five one point seven so that's the difference in other words those and all the other thirty five fifty three are you guys headed i run a because they were not argue well i did make an argument exactly right you made that argument right and i'm saying much further down yes he did i'm saying but i'm saying is not very persuasive to have something like that happen you know it's like i can't breathe i agree like al after going cross examination and then again recross examination it came out that the defendant had actually discussed pain with the smugglers and that is what the district court relied on in the nine the rule twenty nine motion and properly so are coconspirators statements in every sense of the word and therefore they are not hearsay the district court did not rule that these were coconspirators statements and the reason is there was no objection to this issue was never raised and therefore testified that at the port of entry he lied to the inspectors and said he didn't know the driver mr rushton he never told anyone that he spoke to mr rushing until the day of trial and all that came out the inconsistency otherwise of the government that is playing for a number of reasons not the least of which is that this young indicated he was in mexico at a house with other people to come over and be smuggled in addition to the vehicle only being able to go about you know within twenty miles thirty miles of the border and he indicated his final destination was los angeles he wasn't going to los angeles and that there was going to have to be another car presumably another driver also then in fact he should be sent back down mr dunn to argue somehow that the treatment of this case impaired his ability to pursue the special treatment response to that as well that it then that issue the gist of the record is clear there in the although he had no prior criminal record he was arrested for being under the influence of drugs and there's a specific reference to  could impact and so you're you're obviously you know you're you're making a possible decision of cutting her train someone has a serious problem when it can be a negative only to the church to the court you know  that if i had done the complete research on all these i did the research on the on the ones i called horton and and i i am not embarrassed to say that that's one of the great resources of federal funds they're here all the time i do a lot of usually it's taken into account in the billing