after driving the van watched up in front of them and stands by his wife in his car between him in this apartment and out in the street somewhere in the vicinity there's another car with two other officers standing there so he's got  that that nancy that everything that followed from it was approved and should have been suppressed i don't know what more to say about that issue because it's really a matter of comparing the case this but i did want to talk about the acceptance of responsibility issue for i think again it's important to understand the unusual circumstances of this case for the i think one fact we have to accept in reviewing it if the police did not brought half their weapons drawn off i think the judge made a finding  said the responsibility issue we also have some very strong fast first of all mr searle consistently accepted responsibility in multiple ways starting on the very day he was a began by telling the officers about the gun and the drugs phony hold on let me ask you something more specific about that third fourth it looked to me as though he was willing all along we plead to it in advance they have to present it in order to convict them of count one i mean you can stand up there in opening statement and say we're not going to contest this go on count one and if they don't put on cooper one of the elements you're still untitled judge are dealing with some judges even after booker treat the guidelines as having more last way and this judge i think quite clearly if you look at the sentencing analysis he did a guideline sensing analysis and then he basically said i don't think there's something is the view given great weight there's an opinion from wisconsin which is sort of they're just one of the equal factor among many especially if a judge is leaning towards the first of those views which states just pretty clearly appeared to be doing it if the court will look at page nineteen of my opening brief i discussed how very like this case is to the mckinney and i would cases i think those are actually the closer precedents on the facts of this case case at any point by any of the officers until after the defendant had been arrested the district court also clearly found that the defendant was at no point order out of his car rather asking one officer was approaching like to address the acceptance of responsibility issue of judge client thought i think you were pointing out this is not a situation where a defendant pleads guilty to a certain counsel indictment and then proceeds to out and then is subsequently acquitted on all of the counts that he went to trial on in those situations or in such a circumstance which is not presented by this case the government would concede that there are the defendant would have a much stronger case that plea bargaining in the criminal justice system that the government can have some indication of retaliation i think can provide incentives they can provide a carrot to defendants who plead guilty who are playing legal the general going to trial it's not quite that simple if you look at the language of three one point one v i think that that actually supports the government's position as well because the current one doesn't say if you go to trial you will not receive this one point it doesn't say matter the government has in the field that it and therefore that the issue of whether that particular aspect of such a section b is unconstitutional or not it's not presented by the city health rather what the defendant's claim is that the very fact that the provision only benefits people who plead guilty in a timely manner that saves the government resources that that is unconstitutional facially and as apply with respect to the as applied challenge the critical fact  because it didn't have to do anyway and count that he was acquitted on well your honor i would respectfully disagree with that contention that there's a world of difference between someone pleading guilty and thereby giving the government the final of knowing without a conviction it's going to a party to the first count and then going to trial notwithstanding that define and saying in his opening statement in closing argument that the jury should convict him of the first c