problem is with your argument your your whole argument is based on the fact that this was three co defendants gone your five didn't know anything about the problem that i have is that your client pleaded guilty guilty he did can can somebody who pleads guilty to possessing a gun shape but don't allow this enhanced but because i didn't know all the characteristics of the gun i have confessed to possession well your honor it's interesting to note the note eight b of two k one point one the there is a knowledge requirement for guns and other things where somebody else is acts are being imputed to you yes your honor and that's how you brief this case i understand that the reason i am pursuing us however is that that's not the basis on which your client was found to possessed this gun your client pleaded guilty to possessing this gun yes he did and there was a no caviar car out here is the problem in the plea nothing because this was like he pled counts right there was no plea agreement and there was no caviar no carve out saying that he didn't know that it would that that that the what was the smith and wesson was that is not a huge problem for my position it is and he is when you look at the notes to to cave one to create two point one no not you need to know whether or not a weapon can have a large capacity magazine that of course partly to the fact that most pistols can have a large capacity magazine and you know  so you see the tension between what is please and in the position that i look i am very much aware of and sensing there was no specific finding by the district court with respect to the capacity of the smith and wesson there was no there was sort of an assumption the government's position was there were a lot of hand hand deals and there was a large quantity i mean that's really how the government was that was part of how they responded their labor and this was forty eight grand forty five grams which is one that that doesn't help you if he splits i mean it just problematic you're sure you know one thing you could say the judge in the case the district judge did rule that it was not a requirement for the  it appears that everybody has a large fro the firm grasp them on the issues here so i'm not to waste everybody's time but come back in response to mr boy here from southern illinois the question a person here this morning is whether or not the guidelines were calculated properly in particular the language of whether or not this is an offense that involved a firearm capable of acceptin other things related to making and packaging selling drugs into guns i just want to ask you there is no interest in finding by the district court that the guns capability of holding a large capacity magazine was reasonable foreseeable it's just the reasonably foreseeable that the coconspirator would have a gun then either at your honor the the issue of whether or not the law requires that higher standard that accrued that cherry would have needed to specifically know that the smith and wesson was capable of accepting large capacity magazine was not raised until sentencing it and it really wasn't even specifically raised at sentencing council made the up i don't think it's a fair reading of the guideline book to take the third prong of one b one point three which is talking about jointly undertaken criminal activity talking about when someone's actions are you know imputed to someone else and to say that that applies specifically to the characteristics in section two k two point one the guidelines book is not a book that reads like prose obviously but it also is a book that unless there's a cross reference or some reason to say that this phrase on page twenty two modifies this page on two forty nine there's no reason to think that that phrase modifies that phrase well how is this case different from imposing sentencing  require the capability of accepting large magazines to be reasonably foreseeable well the davidson case that's pointed out by counsel in his in his brief talks about cases  that are drug dealing that's outside of the scope of what the defendant himself did so you these are deals that other defendants did without the knowledge of the trial i guess your question is if if other drug dealing is part of the same course of conduct you know we can attribute you know we can attribute the drugs of one codefendant to another let's it was reasonably forseeable and i'm just saying that's it now this star situation it's  there are two different things it's a i think the drug analogy goes to the nature of the remember was the agreement big enough to include these other quantities so i think here you'd be saying was the nature of this agreement such that it would be reasonable you would anticipate what i'm saying is when you're dealing with one point six ounces it might have a street value of six thousand dollars you make an argument that that's a large amount you know maybe depending on the community that's in that could be a large amount but i just saw that i day that i would submit that is a lot of turbulence you're just doing a lot of it a lot of time so i would submit it is forseeable i would say though to the extent that we're being blamed on appeal for not making a good record about that specific that goes right back to the standard of review this is plainer the defendant never argued that this standard even applied so we can very right you can and i wasn't and i wasn't trying to suggest blame or anything i was just asking what your view would be on this reasonable force of c ability as it relates to the capacity of the firearm and of course you can't be responsible if it has in that race that's right my view is is is that it's a real stretch to read that requirement and one b one point three into that characteristic of two to get two point one but i understand that there would be some basis some analogous basis to take that approach from the drug context so my even going through the acrobatics of the guidelines this method lesson would have been enhanced meant under two d for the drug counts for possessing a gun and for others of those drug counts those are grouped together  account for the feeling of possession count under the grouping is so really just under the four corners of the indictment approach to sentencing the enhancement should apply if for some reason this court were not to accept that approach and you want to go further  indulge the relevant conduct analysis the point is that it should be forseeable and again to the extent that there are specific findings those are because this question was raised so unless there are other any other questions i would just close with if you want to find whether or not the case involved a gun without a capacity magazine that was the question this case involved a gun by capacity magazine and defended the guilty to