we also have to deal with the garter of invited errors these were motions by the defense and it seems very strange for the defense to say the judge heard and the case should be remanded or the prosecution dismissed himself agreed to it but such as and wasn't the speedy trial at specifically texturally states and i understand the judge has to make particular findings that's why i'm talking not about whether there was error but i'm talking about the doctrine of the invited error friends counsel is preparing correctly but there's a difficulty with that argument too because mr crow we went through three attorneys and it was any of these continuances are granted for purposes of the changes of counsel and the need for a new counsel to get up to speed on the case and so he can't simultaneously fire his attorneys or make life so difficult for them that they have to agree to his request they withdraw and then demand strict adherence to the speedy trial rules to the detriment of his new counsel's getting up to speed on the case i mean those two things can't co exist your honor you know there are some periods which we don't miss we don't contest because they're right after counsel was appointed and even if some other periods may be bullied bullied into that we only need twenty part of the problem the case where the court is making findings it's using the psych evaluation you know the results of received months beforehand as a validation even though the council's asking for is you know time to deal with another matter at approximately the same time we don't know what that matter is fourteen page of the indictment and consider over ten paragraphs in a week before trial the government invoked the scriveners exception which is one of the few times you can amendment i without going back to the grand jury to dismiss nineteen out of twenty five counts thank you your honor good morning nic winder on behalf of the plaintiff family the united states of america may please a core your honor first and foremost there's a few matters in the record that ne clarification both to refine the issues and give the district court credit for what it did here on three of them in particular first the government did not seek to dismiss counts from the indictment as  any of the ten continuances that is attorneys question he filed a number of pro se letters throughout the case and in nearly all of them he expressed disagreement with his lawyer strategy or disapproval with their preparation  like to focus you if i can on the sentence in this case yes your honor that the district judge counted as part of relevant conduct ten cars that were outside counsel conviction correct  on and they're under the guidelines they're relevant conduct if they're part of the same scheme or plan that's correct or where did the district court find that they're part of the same scheme or plan with respect to the evidence common scheme among all fourteen vehicles was present on evidence in mr robi's home primarily where where do i go to find that because i must say i look for that finding and couldn't find it and your brief does point the court to it because your brief argues only that the evidence convincingly shows that he did it which is not but legally relevant question so where should i go i've i've obviously missed it you say it's there will i find it at the sentencing hearing the you know at the sentencing hearing is not a place to go look it doesn't help me your honor the judge heard he do it but it's not the question posed by the guy i looked and didn't see the fun i asked my walker to look they didn't see the fun and now i'm asking you and you can't point me to the fin your honor at sentencing the judge found that mr robey exhibited a pattern of conduct that the evidence found at his home a state where you're just saying go reread it you obviously read it wrong before you can point me to a place some specific finding and the third volume of the trial transcript now page nineteen lines one through five five to nine the court after hearing the government's proffer as to the evidence  the government to cut to the chase and explain specifically why all fourteen vehicles are part of the same common scheme or plan the government did describing the typewriter ribbon and the other other types of evidence that were found at the home that court said that she found a pattern of conduct among all four that was the court's phrase they hadn't of conduct based on the record at trial and the record of sensing that established or when you give me the what you're now getting from for identifying so i can go look at it it's on page twenty of the sentencing transcript lines two to seven and the court concludes i quote the evidence describes the same sort of pattern that was at issue before the jury in the trial and revealed that pattern of relevant conduct that far exceeded in its that's that's a finding that the defendant used the same modus operandi but it's the same pattern of conduct that's not the finding which is the other stolen vehicles in this case the ten other vehicles and the judge who came that's what we have to go on that's what we've got to go on record is what it is that or if the court has does the court have any further questions about any of the other issues in the case and if not i'll take my  didn't ask the government what the common scheme between all of the vehicles brought in the sentencing was they simply asked about the source and were taking in permissible shortcuts in doing so i'd also like to turn to the argument about the amendment to note that the government is misrepresenting what actually happened when it moved to amend the indictment this is just a today they brought up a new argument it was not raised in their brief trying to explain away their use of scrivener's when they decided to dismiss  absence of a single case in the history of the republic does she just that there might be a material difference between amending an indictment and dismissing guilty or your honor we we have seen cases where the government does go back to the grand jury when it decides to dismiss counts and they should have done this in this case especially given the fact that they were dismissing seventy six percent of the indictments they also indicated their weariness that it is problematic to change too much of what a grand jury has found when they ended up deciding to remember the counts they did so on the first day of trial and the government lawyer noted i'm just maybe hesitant to change too much of what a grand jury has found  they were aware that there are problems with doing with renumbering if the government was concerned about the remembering and not potentially being problematic they should have been concerned about changing one hundred other hands the numerical order of counts reflect what the grand jury did or didn't do and that's a matter of no concern to the grand jury i would agree with that your honor i think it's the substantive change that was more problematic and which