and then there's a third issue that's raised by the government on cross appeal i'll briefly address all three with respect to the first issue raised by the defendant the defendant claims that the district court heard by denying the defen probation violation there is clearly reasonable cause to believe that there was have been a violation mr rodriguez at the time there was for fill in the arrest warrants out for his arrest and at the time he was arrested he had a chunk of heroin in his pocket also lived in the apartment came home from school saw the firearm on the table that day and then again asked the defendant what are you doing that with out of the defendant responded to the fact that i'm taking care of this issue and i'm going to be disposing of a firearm so not only was he seen in possession of the firearm but acknowledged in fact he was taking steps to dispose of it properly and then it was the next day that the search was conducted the firearm was found on the underneath a couch from a coffee table near the defendant's the jury had to make those credibility findings which the jury did to determine whether mister rodriguez was in fact a possession that firearm so the government's position respectfully that there was clearly sufficient evidence to support the jury's  and that's where we get to the corona sanchez case which the district court relied on to determine whether those are those three swashing stick convictions are serious drug offenses meaning that they're punishable by term of imprison when a misdemeanor conviction can somehow be transformed into a felony conviction and i think that was the core and now says of the krona sanchez case and i think the the core of the we what is the core offense that the court looks to to determine issues about punishment and particularly the core fence with respect to whether something is a felony or misdemeanor and there's  the punishment that well then and then you look to determine what the pos and i think that's the issue was what really matters is what's the possible penalty that could be imposed and for these washington state convictions  the contrary a different thing than the corona sanchez case the form for a criminal act has been interpreted to be expansive the language is expansive it looks to cases involving things such as drug trafficking that's different than the chrono sanchez case where i think that this court looked to the definition of what a theft offense was and determine that congress wanted to narrow that that that whole definition of what the nature of that of the way the washington state criminal statute is laid out in this case it's in the same article of the same chapter and significantly in all three of these convictions if you look at the judgment commitment orders from th just for the record at think whether you look at taylor which clearly outlines the purposes and intent and legislative concerns of the armed career criminal act as well as looking at the in there looking at i believe in one case it said the most serious drug trafficking cases with a multi large quantities of drugs but the basic they're not looking at the underlying facts of either crime they're looking at the statutory definition which is in terms of to what punishment that crime is expose