there the proximity in that case is not now the difference between the trafficking offense and another from any offense in this case possession is an important one because it tells us first that simple piece it said there were twenty nine grams of marijuana but in the district court and sentencing and then again in the briefs both the government and you say two hundred ninety nine grams and the reason i mean it seems to be that now that's wait it's two hundred ninety nine but the difference is pretty significant and that amount of marijuana would be worth a lot more money than twenty one grams and why the discrepancy i think that that that two hundred ninety nine is correct it does it make a difference in other words that the marijuana was there versus a scenario where you had only the cocaine and the gun is the marijuana have any bearing i don't think so because i think when you're speaking in terms of marijuana just a pretty small amount of marijuana in the grand scheme of things and when we're looking at the trafficking cases which is what the government relied wholly aren't likely something very different in those cases  drug dealers those cases often involve defendants that have a prior conviction for drug dealing there's absolutely no evidence in this case that mr bruce's ever been involved in a drug transaction or is likely to be involved in a drug transaction we don't represent that to be a bright line rule and in fact this morning i was trying to think of like what circumstances in this particular case maybe would have made his possession of the drugs and the guns in his home satisf and so i thought it's on the record that when his cell phone was seized from her and there were pictures on his cell phone and in the pictures on his cell phone you see him possessing the guns in one instance or another  f those service perhaps had presented him perhaps playing both the gun and the drugs and maybe sending a protection text to a friend saying no one better bother my stash in that case i think  suspected people would be around that would want to invade their personal status i think that's true i don't think it's presented in this case i think that what is presented in this case we did reach out a little outside of the record in the fashion of judge posner to include the home invasion he'd also been shot in two thousand and eight and has a metal rod in his leg the fact that he simultaneously and i think we also run the risk of falling back on the presumption that because you have them there together one must be there to protect the other and the sentencing guidelines if we fall back on that presumption we're giving no weight or credit to the fact that the sentencing guidelines were changed just if it's drug trafficking and they're in proximity we're going to apply a presumption that you used it to protect those drugs drug trafficker i think it's not an act that going through the factors that the government and second question are is there any sign in this record that the district judge based her sentence more on thirty five fifty three eight on the guidelines in essence saying i  evidence that was that the court the district court properly found was relevant in this case and i do think that the record shows that if this recorder found that the defendant has three loaded firearms in connection with drug trafficking worst where do you think i'm sorry it's twenty ninth yes page twenty nine in the supplemental appendix eleven that the court refer specifically to the district or the digital scales which indicates some type of drug trafficking possibly and also the finding that there was no personal use items that were found in the bedroom in the same which is where the firearms were found in the defendant's residence your honor to me that's a finding that this was of that is that judge as the judge stated she didn't even have to find trafficking that in fact mere possession would be sufficient for application of the four level enhancement of the let's assume that we disagree with you the drugs it was just possession of drugs a felony and the firearm possession was in connection with this action of felony possession of drugs that finding a sufficiently stated in the record and it's reasonable inference even if this court trafficking that there's this presumption that that core level against me should apply if it's not drug trafficking then it's just like any other felony and any other felony means we fall back on the rule that stated in the guidelines which is the  the firearms must've facilitated or had the potential of facilitating this other felony offense in that way i think that the defense argument that this this house fortress theory whatever there was a concern about personal protection protecting against the possibility of not another robbery i think that that undermined chances bartle you know that better than i do yes that's absolutely right and i also know that if in fact the defendant was a victim of a robbery  and you know maybe was sending out photographs of himself possessing firearms to make other people aware that he's protecting himself those firearms are would serve a dual purpose to protect himself in his home with three loaded firearms including one that had over twenty rounds in the magazine i think it was perfectly reasonable for judge pratt to say look what are you going to have use for if not to protect something and that's something even going along with what the defen found in this particular case then maybe that would not be a reasonable inference to draw i don't know judge but i'm saying that in this case i think it is a reasonable inference in this court should occur if there are no further questions or rest in the briefing in proximity to one another that the district court may always find that they are in connection with one another and i think in this case there's no credible evidence that mr trafficking in drugs i don't think back in the queue and up anywhere and