conspiracy to suicide or not aiding and abetting down well yes i guess else remotely it can be read that it was eating in the bedding down the road but i guess the point is that the indictment really allegations the indictment center around substance of the conduct actually was the fact that there was some knowledge of methamphetamine manufacture arguably some knowledge of methamphetamine manufacture down the road doesn't change that the core of the offense was forty one d if i  obviously i know i'm not going to be charged in the first place unless i'm going with the wrong reasons but so obviously i know it's going to be used the wrong reasons and that mere fact alone  the guideline there for encompass is this element of knowledge and i guess my issue is really with the facts as they apply in sentencing in the sense that you can't  position or the court the district courts position is always well anytime there's knowledge that down the road the drug is going to be used for methamphetamine manufacture you cross reference to drug manufacture then there is no purpose in even charging  it's the court code then when it gets to something in your view i see the court's going obviously in that context the only provision or convicted the person would have been convicted as in forty one and so the guidelines with  found out the move no way that a jury would have found your client guilty under the current one or two or both that's correct it's unclear what the jury relied on and what the jury actually found which which part it was it was finding made findings that this was a possession of pseudoephedrine cases that involved the manufacturing of meth and therefore the cross reference should apply and so this question of what involving the manufacturing of meth arises then because that is what the court did is adopt p s are applied this cross reference so the court the court failed to find plain how there were completed actions in this case deficient to show that methamphetamine manufacturing occurred  i guess maybe the distinction is that under the guidelines what's necessary to show to link the methamphetamine and required cross reference is actually not necessarily a greater level of proof but the language is stronger in terms of what they want  what is necessary to ship to too involved to apply the cross reference meaning and i apologize i'm wondering here the guidelines no no this is a very exciting s sale i'm not sure that the evidence was that clear is to you i mean the government did did did show that some of the documents perhaps dovetail i'm not sure it was clear that the ones that she she produced dovetails with a statement out and i made in this remembering the record it's not it wasn't i'm not sure the dovetailing was done explicitly on the record i guess is my point but also in addition to that though the certification doesn't clarify that the business  initially against interest so even if the court wants it wants to take the records from my client word missions against interest there was still a slew of records showing quantities of pseudoephedrine sales that were not adopted in the sense of shown the certification at the very least should explain how the business uses these records rather than merely parroting eight zero three six and saying this is these records are kept in regular contact of business activities that are etc there should be some actual application of how that was done defendants and i set out for the jury to make a specific finding as to each you know an object and i remember that specifically because the eight forty one a one object carries a ten year mandatory minimum peel from the judgment i think the intent behind that is not going to help ok thank you and i would only only very briefly address the issue of the discovery  united states versus reader