questions asked on the briefs regarding the crime of violence issue this court should rule in favor of mistrial or there are because his firearms possession was coincidental and unrelated to his girlfriend's possession of marijuana in her bedroom this court has stated in both panetta peterson and other cases that may or coincidental possession is insufficient for application of the enhancement and here we have nothing beyond coincidental presence of mistrial or there as firearms as marijuana in her bedroom when mr all of that was apprehended he was cooperated with the police and he identified the firearms as his and in the police asked him why he was in possession of those firearms he stated that there are still people out there who don't like me in other words that he has us those firearms for his own protection and i think that is what makes this case different from other cases that this court has reviewed with respect to this no your honor i think that there are two avenues here the first is that this trial or there was not in constructive possession of the marijuana whether it was for distribution or for simple possession but if the court were to find that he in constructive possession another avenue is that the drugs were intended for simple possession only and so there is no triggering a felony and i think the court could make that finding because the district attorney's office i'm sorry the we don't know that from the record turning back to coincidental possession i wanted to mention that mr oliver was the victim of two murder attempts one ball in his head he permanently lost hearing in one ear as a result just a few months after that incident he went to a baby shower with his girlfriend and a bull intended to kill him instead kill his girlfriend he was severely traumatized by these events honor that's true however i think the district court erred by drawing a connection to drugs that mistrial or there may not have even been aware of try a connection to his firearms there was a reasonable because he stated to the police and i think the court should also find significant that mistrial that was cooperative he pled guilty in this case the only issue he has had contention with is that he it's possible your honor he did point out about one of the guns had a broken magazine so it's possible he was in the process of i don't know why he had both guns but was the trial judge entitled to give any honor the prior conviction is from two thousand and ten seven years before his sentencing in this case that conviction also involve selling crack cocaine i think the facts are quite different guarding the drugs being sold by miss gomez a sister there is nothing on the record to show that mr there had any relationship with the sister that he was ever in her bedroom or have knowledge of what was in her bedroom and this was a house there was a medical marijuana case and i recognize that people in massachusetts now may possess scales to stay within the one ounce limit they knew about cases commonwealth versus richardson and in response  question about three bags it's certainly possible that mr miss come as purchased her marijuana for her personal use in those smart of asians it just seems seems like some of the stricter pictures someone who is living here with her sister t bedroom apartment yes here we have present not only a scale which may or may not have been used for that purpose standing alone we have along with that sandwich bag we have marijuana that's broken up into separate individualized baggies alongside cash and that evidence taken to the defendant sentencing guidelines calculation this is a case where the government chose to prosecute the defendant specifically for the distribution in this case and and and terms of whether or not the defendant was aware of what i think is a clear inference trial on by the district court judge that there was a back distribution happening i would like to point out a few factual statements made by the defendant one which was that the scale defendant did not object when it's also a statement that the defendant may no arguments either in his sentencing memorandum or at the sentencing hearing to suggest was somehow false but just what was therefore entitled to take that statement as true and rely on it and it stayed primarily with her but again the district court was entitled to rely on those statements as evidence that even if we don't know exactly how much time the defendant was spending there it was a not insubstantial amount of time and judge  mention the presence of two firearms and raise the question of why he would have those two firearms in this house if he wasn't staying there and i would just like to know on that point that not only were there two firearms but one of those firearms was found  clothing container inside an arm wire and i think there's a fair inference there there that even if perhaps one of those firearms was being transported with a financial or his personal protection there was a firearm that stayed and remained in that room you  certainly got a lot of your argument is a chain of inferences you know there's no direct evidence we have to sort of and for that she was distributing not just using we have to for that he was aware of it although there's no direct evidence of that disha that drug distribution was happening there and i think that one can take the fact that there were these industries in plain view in that bedroom along with the fact that the defendant spent in substantial amount of time in that room and reached the conclusion first not only defendant knew about the distribution that was taking place but also that the firearm and drugs were part of the signal shared common criminal and other to take the firearms do i correctly understand the government position to be setting  surveillance in connection with those controlled by his in other words officers fault the confidential let us go and return from the house with the heroin purchase that we're not talking about a case of twenty four hour surveillance such as having a pool camera out for example and so unless the distribution of marijuana was happening by chance at precisely the same moment that the heroin distribution was happening officers want to have necessarily known to be aware of the marijuana distribution this court to hicks which was a constructive possession case and the facts are widely different from what's present here i don't have the time to go through them but and then regarding the scale the p s r objections to state that