did not comply with rule thirty two in fact the district court expressly refused to comply with rule thirty two in making specific factual findings as to the issues of aggravated assault serious bodily injury among numerous others including restitution yawners there were four separate sentencing hearings in this case and that's rather unusual and the reason for that is because so many issues were presented and put in direct factual dispute by mr allen mia and then at the end of the sentencing for sentencing hearing were not ruled upon by the district court sentencing guidelines range the advisory sentencing guidelines range of high speed flight from the immigration checkpoint began to level ten when the district court was done in applying all of the enhance beginning with aggravated assault resulted in a level twenty nine but what about that valley through thirty two what pilots rule thirty two your honor is the fourth finding of aggravated assault first of all there must be an  supported by application no one of the guidelines it's inherent in what an aggravated assault is it's an assault and therefore because this was not resolved by the district court even though it was placed language of the guidelines and you and i think a case which is highly persuasive and very similar is that of the houston case and i put that in my opening brief at page twenty three in that case you well you know if i can if i can cite to me you are an expert to record in the district court's own words i think it will reflect what the problem was at page five eighty three of the excerpts of record when mr allen i think for the second or record the totality of evidence piece by piece that it contends to support the determination that it's aggravated assault that's not a clear ruling and that's my position here is that that statement by the district court did not say decide whether the circumstantial evidence taken as a whole provides the inference that i believe that if we look at the language that was used in houston texas the language in the houston case was far less ambiguous than this language and this quote remained it saying we need strict compliance with rule thirty two and what i was stating in this case is that there were several sentencing hearings that which mr armey a requested  evidentiary hearing at sentencing and the court refused and the court has the right to do that under an abuse of discretion standard however what the court does not have the right to do is refuse to make specific factual findings on the record enhancement the guidelines for a violation of section seven fifty eight which is a high speed flight from a checkpoint are found at united states embassy guy likes to a two point four that's specifically the statute tells you to go to what happened was the court made a finding of aggravated assault to get to the aggravated assault guideline and then a back room beyond that applied several other adjustments and i thought you were talking it's when you go to school with a two point four there's a cross reference that says if you find this constitutes aggravated assault go to the aggravated assault guidelines in the aggravated assault guideline it tells you what aggravated assault patrol checkpoint under section seven fifty eight of title eighteen the guidelines are clear and the quote had a three day trial in a record before it and the probation officers report was clear  the record indicates on iraq i was ninety six after the issue of whether or not in evidence recruiting was required the court said that the court declined to do that i don't think it's necessary  injury and or through a one point two three one there was an official victim injury four plus six all of these findings were clear in the three day trial that the that the district court held and the district now after the guidelines were calculated under the conviction for eighteen u s c seven fifty eight the probation officer would do the guideline calculation for the count to violation under eight u s c thirteen twenty twenty nine under the count three seven fifty eight violation for a total guideline range of thirty and the clearly opposing the government's contention that there should not be minus two for acceptance o responsibility granted alamy up minus two levels for acceptance of responsibility coming out with a combined offense level twenty eight criminal history category three the range was ninety seven to one hundred twenty one months and the court calculated the mid range as being reasonable and the court did say under the thirty five fifty three factors after doing the analysis under the guidelines  has taken into consideration all of the sentencing factors including the advisory guidelines and the factors under thirty five fifty three the court again says that  presided over the trial of this matter was able to see and hear the attitude and demeanor of the witnesses and i still believe this was one of the more egregious cases that the court has seen on these facts for someone who's not supposed to be in the united states or not stopping properly at the checkpoint and then sadly making officials like them the agent and then also the innocent bystander victim on the side of the road trying to go to school the teacher special ed class so the court does believe that the sentence is just and proper clearly rule thirty two was not violated now there are a number of issues with regard to the illegal entry violation that i'd like to address in my date of the deportation was not steps north and there was some possibility that there were two or three dates of deportation that might be found by the jury or language used now then a finding by jury and and review by this court that that date of deportation was the only one possible would not violate kovi and stand deportation before an immigration judge on october twentieth two thousand and three there was later testimony extensive testimony about the september thirteenth two thousand and four or reinstatement of deportation that i'm sorry you know my question yes that he witnessed the actual removal of alameda on september thirteenth two thousand and four and i've looked at the documents his document shows the fingerprint comparison so the in fact removed he witnessed the removal on september thirteenth two thousand and four in addition in the record there is testimony about a post arrest aikman made by alameda after he was apprehended after the flight from the checkpoint in wh no evidence to find that the jury had fingerprint or bends testimonial evidence documentary evidence all of the documents that andre spitz monterey pop into evidence when he testified had to do with the september thirteenth two thousand  cites federal criminal procedure thirty two just two points i really need to address based on the government's argument the first is that the government states that these agents were subject to cross examination and they were and if you look at the trial record who was the victim was it the border patrol agent or was it a result of the accident that occurred twenty four miles past the checkpoint it's not clear from the record you got a vague reference to serious bodily injury was that seri westerlund davis is battling injury and if so was her bodily injury was she a victim of aggravated assault what happened at sentencing was very simply the probation officer and the government went and picked and choose the guidelines that they wanted to result in a nineteen level unhandsome and the district court after repeated repeated factual objections by mr o'neill did not make specific findings on record and i ask this court to go look at the totality of the record is the district court instructed this court to do saying the court of appeal can make that determination nowhere your honor in the four sentencing hearings did the district court