you would lose on three dollars in this case i think it would depend on the basis for which the prosecution or on which the prosecution won well i think they'd have to get they'd have to get questions i just want to focus my time on the issues that are exclusive to this case now turning to the merits there are two reasons why the court should vacate the judgment of the district court and remand the case rescind and saying on the remaining three violations before a different district judge st the evidence did not supportive of the show that mr garcia engaged in conduct amounting to the puerto rico crime of attempting or conspiring to assess controlled substance with intent to distribute and an incorrect interpretation of the law now in the district court's view it is a foregone conclusion that whenever a defendant is charged with violating article for one and then that defendant later pleads guilty to an article for six that if the fact finding framework that she applied was wrong in this court would have to say so very clearly and i believe that the court did as much a few months later in the united states versus martinez and he this could you clarify something i thought honor is st of all police complaints the charge him with two article for one counts one for possession of marijuana when the distributor in the other one for cocaine we don't get the sixty four dollars total containers project and as to the the the remaining items that the problem that we have on this record is are basically to st we don't have any information as to how those items  have is that allegation together with criminal complaints and i don't you have to say to the court can't that those allegations and then i got them from something in the docket in this case charge and and again there's also another problem and it would be that it seemed that it would have been that this record had already made up or it seemingly had charges at the state level however the government again aside from from those documents presented nothing else in support of the charge that our client had in fact committed an article i think in this case our kind did plead guilty to one of the there was a three point one charge and a three forty four abused by restriction of liberty and the three four charge was a classified as three point here i also want to  in the record below our client admitted to the so the allegations of three point one or at least that not dispute that they had occurred in that manner as alleged by the by the government but i don't some evidence of well what we have is a police complaint as one can place a complaint in this case and also we have actually the uncontested motion because it's fall in motion saying we're not contesting the violations in this case what happened was if you look at started make the allegation of forty one versus four or six and versus three point one so your honor if you really look at it i mean he even it may read in his motion crusie we are not contesting the motion of the probation officer and what is a probation officer all the court knew to do is find that he committed some type of crime either state local or whatever and even the guidelines state that so we were at the sentencing phase and what can the court rely on at sentencing is a lesser you don't yes both of which we take there's a sentence in either one of them that if we say that's the law you lose but your argument is we should not deem that sentence in either case as law because it determining whether it is a crime of violence or excuse me is a controlled substances act or even a crime of violence and therefore it's a government's position it is a categorical crime involving a controlled substance of facts now if i it failed to do so the st revocation hearing when the board invite when the district court invited riffing on the issue and again at the final revocation here and also it is our position that it's a law the circuit so i don't think the pens on the factual one without a finding that an offense is a controlled substance offense so one excuse me when one makes the argument that an offense is not for a controlled substance offense what one is really saying is that it does not contain the necessary requirements and that is based on a factual determination and finally with regard to the evidence that the judge was referring to earlier i think  substance it sounds like someone selling drugs in the end one thing i would note in that regard was that he also tested positive for drugs when he was apprehend when he was tested by the by the probation officer so i'm not i know that this is a while quantity of drugs that the word may believe is significant but by the same token it could have also been for personal