good morning your honour's may it please the court david ryan on behalf of the united states to reserve two minutes for rebuttal and i'd like to begin with the suppression issue unless the court would for me to do otherwise the district court correctly held that officers in this case did not exceed the scope of the search warrant when they entered the auto shop that the defendant used to sell drugs and then searched a back room that he used to store the drugs i'd like to highlight three facts in the record that demonstrate just how integrated these two rooms had become st the riverside city code enforcement actually cited the building about a week after the search for making quote interior alterations including quote combining units one hundred and fourteen dollars and unit one hundred and six in other words the city code enforcement section found exactly what the officers saw which is that the defendant had combined the two units into one objective analysis the search warrant the search warrants plain terms cover the back room the storage room then if the court were to conclude it didn't then i think the court would look to whether the officers reasonably believed that it did but i think the district court held both in the alternative the district court held both that the back room was covered by the warrant and alternatively even if it were not the officers reasonably believed it was based on their surveillance and what they saw during their safety sweep i think both of those holdings are supported by the record the nd fact that shows that not only are not relying on the storage room aspect i think we are relying on the storage room i think the reason why the district court correctly held that the storage room was part of and a storage room for the front unit is based on how the defendant had combined the units into one so that the drugs being stored in the back were for that were to be sold out of the front  point i want to make sure is clear from the record is there is a diagram at supplemental excerpts of record ninety that shows all the interior alterations that the defendant had made to these two units and what it shows is the rooms where the drugs were found were actually in secret closets that straddled the space between what was once the front unit and once the back unit but had become combined into one interconnected space in other words the drugs were not found in the back unit or the front you know they were in secret rooms that literally straddled the two look at only be accessed through concealed passageways the defendant had built the rd fact that i think i would like to point out is the items found in the back unit reveal the true purpose which was to store the drugs being sold out of the front these were the back door the exterior door to the back and it was locked from the inside the numbers on the outside were painted white so this back unit was not accessible other than through the entrance to the front you know what the officers did know that the time they executed the search correct that's correct so i think that we can't really consider those facts gamli i think that the court can consider those facts when considering whether as an objective matter the back unit was covered by the terms of the warrant saying that question is not based on what the officers knew at the time but rather based on an objective assessment of the layout of the room but you have any case law that says we're making that assessment we can look to what was discovered after the fact i'm just not aware of any cases that say we can what the odds are still is ok because after the fact we figured all these things therefore it was ok i mean i think your strongest case is what they knew at the time as opposed to saying well and it turns out that this room when they searched it backed up their theory of the case i think with respect to what the officers reasonably believed under the garrison good faith exception analysis i completely agree it's what the officers knew at the time with respect to whether the room simply is the room that was in the warrant i don't believe the case  say that's based on what the officers knew that's based on looking at the facts that actually existed but i don't disagree that i think the strongest argument the most the strongest argument is certainly that at the very least the officers reasonably believed based on everything they saw that this was one interconnected space their surveillance had indicated it was going to be a large continuous space from the front of the building to the back when they went in they found this very small space that did not match everything they had learned up to that point and they quite quickly found what  expected to find which were concealed passageways and hidden walls and secret compartments that led to a storage room which was before they executed the search warrant they had it surveyed the entire facility correct yes  or they were aware that on the south side there were entry there was there were garage doors and regular doors into the back businesses on the back side is that correct that's correct your honor they were aware that other sections of the back side the south that's correct but they were also aware that number one based on their surveillance the drug operation appeared to go from the front entrance to one hundred and fourteen all the way to the back and number two that although they saw some numbers to the left and to the right they saw no numbers for a suite in the spot they were looking at that it was him they executed the search warrant and they didn't play city officers in the back so it is that's correct that is not in the record whether they did place officers in the back during the time they executed the search warrant it is in the record that they surveilled the back or at least attempted to surveil the back and had difficulty doing so because of concerns about being found out doing that they had to surveil the back from across the street right car it's also in the record from the photos that the defendant put in that even had they surveilled the back from far closer they would not have seen the numbers one of six they're not visible in the picture from about where we are when they actually executed the search warrant that you place any officers in the that's correct that and i think the basis for that  is as i can tell in the record is that they see no activity in the back and the only way to get to the back as i understand it from the record is to go around through the front so when they executed the search when they went in through the front and they attempted to secure the location that way they they clear all the people out is pointed out in the warrant affidavit as well that in multiple places where the officer believed that he had seen customers entering through the front and not seen activity in the back of the unit so i don't think the officers had a basis to believe that the back was was being used for any purpose the the rd item i would point out that what officers did find in the back you know on their initial safety sweep that further confirm that the back unit was purely a storage room for the front was the television screen showing surveillance of the cars and customers entering the front of the front you know as well as the fact that the in addition to the three foot hole which was the only way to access the back unit the three foot hole between the front in the back there was a recently painted section of dry wall in the shape of a door indicating that not only had there been the three foot hole but a door between the two adjoining units had recently been sealed up and if this could they see that recently sealed up space from inside the front entrance the front part no i don't believe so i don't believe so i certainly don't believe that's indicated in the record the photograph of that which side of the wall was painted a door inside of the back room do otherwise and given that i doubt that i'm the appellant on this i know sounds kind of strange but i would like to have the last word if i could save one min of my time for a bottle at the end i'd appreciate that government counsel i agree on one thing now the briefs were a little bit fuzzy about what you consider in the st instance to find out whether there was a violation of the th amendment they blended what the officers believed with what the warrant the text of the warrant said and now i think they're acknowledging that the st step is only based on the text of the warrant and the objectives physical characteristics of the space and based on that alone what when and or what they knew you know i think all that goes to  the nd question which is whether they've made a reasonable mistake but the initial question about what was covered by the warrant is the plain text of the warrant and what the objective what we ducked of lino about the space and here we know that the warrant covered only for us we won fourteen correct correct so that's the hook there what is it this is a storage room and and again i want to separate out the objective question of whether this can objective be questioned characterized as a storage room and then this after nd question about shop out front is a completely separate body shop they see there thirty different cars in there and there's there's also is a government point out there is a drug weighing station apparently in a drug suit in a surveillance station much that out a repair business might have guards around the property well but here's the thing it of government forgot to mention when they said you know they looked in there and the only access to this place was a three foot hole some surveillance in the back where they saw the back doors apparently not very interested in it because there's no evidence in the reports or very much in the declarations about what they found that there were these spent a lot of time back there but i think what's even more telling is if you look at page eighty one of the supplemental actress of record where the describing the property of the scenes i'm describing one hundred and fourteen they say one hundred and fourteen has two doors a garage door and a pedestrian door facing front if they were thinking that this was someplace that hat went all the way to the back and they already knew that there were two more doors in the back that would have reasonably made it into their description counsel me ask you this if there were when they entered suite one hundred and fourteen if there was a sign on the wall that said storage room and had an arrow pointing down to the whole way could they infer that was a storage in then i would i would say that that would be factored into the balance of all the factors that were known as to whether that would be either an objective way to characterize the room in the st place or a reasonable mistaken belief in the nd let me ask you that if that's the case then couldn't the officers and for that a hole in the wall that is designed to be for people to crawl through that is hidden by a fan couldn't the end for that that is the same as something being labeled a storage room for one hundred and fourteen dollars no not the somewhat the the the evidence of the record is the officers susie looked through he saw a large warehouse with many many cars so what is that what it what other purposes there for a hole in the wall hidden by a fan you know clearly there was some there was some reason they wanted to have this clandestine access between the rooms right but that doesn't convert the nature of the room that's on the other side is i can use an example let's say to the officers got a warrant to search court room three they come in here and they find a three foot hole over there they look through they see another b they see another podium counsel tables more spectator seating is it reasonable for them to say oh that must be part of courtroom three or they go oh that's in completely different court room storage units and suites and courtrooms can be analogized you know but auto shops and i think what the real soon as they look through there were inside of an auto shop as part of the multi unit complex they're inside of an auto shop they look through and they see what it can only be reasonably described as another auto shop and they may and what the nd circuit said that's when you put in actually garrison as well that's when you step back and stop say let's put our thing on hold place a couple of phone calls get another warrant then we search council the search warrant also says the surrounding grounds and any garages attached or detach storage rooms etc does that help us in any way no your honor i did address both the surrounding ground and roger's language in my brief the government did not respond  believe one of the court's caseload is there for waived any reliance on the surrounding grounds and rogers but even if the court reached in any way it's it's it's no more a grog that is sweet sense i'm conceding that the there was a requirement to impose a consecutive sentence but this court frequently does not consider viable defense sentencing issues when a defendant files a late notice of appeal when his plea agreement includes a waiver that precludes those things and i don't think the court should be any less diligent in forcing those rules against the government and in particular i would like to say with regard to the thirty seven dollars for the thirty to forty seven requirement about ten years ago in a case called way shaw the court said we're taking this requirement seriously and if the defendant objects the government has to come for the documentation showing that the person to supposedly approved the appeal actually did so and we came forward and we cited that case we said it's the government's obligation nalle to produce documentation and what they did is in their last brief these side a bunch of facts about jeffrey wall being a principal deputy solicitor general and then at some point in a particular day he became the acting there's no factual support little inside articles or anything about that that's not documentation to meet their burden to prove that and i think that in the way shot case the court said we're not going to be so forgiving about this in the future present the documentation when it's needed and i think that unless the court takes the opportunity in this case to dismiss the appeals the sanction for not complying with that they're going to continue t you your honors i'd like to make three points two on the suppression issue one is the good faith of the officers in reason their reasonable belief that the back room was a storage room it's not just the three by three foot hole that they saw it's also number one what they knew from their surveillance going into that day which led to their expectation that the auto shop the purported outer shop would run all the way to the back of the building as well as the business records that showed that the auto shop only least one unit and their conclusion therefore that that one unit likewise ran all the way to the back of the building and then its also their observations during their initial safety sweep of the back room so once they went through the back hole once that went through the hole into the back room everything they saw confirmed their belief that this back room was a storage room for the front so they didn't just find cars they found again the drug multiple drug packaging stations they found that the room was locked from the inside so yes there was an exterior door but the only way to open it was if you st went in the front room and then they found the recently sealed door between the two rooms so what they saw in the safety suite confirmed what they already reasonably believe the point on the acting solicitor general the government in footnote six of our rd brief on cross appeal addressed that issue and indicated that if the court required her wish to see further evidence that the government would would provide it unless the court has additional questions the government will submit thank you suppression understood i think the government just helped make the point for me because as describing what the officers found inside room one hundred and six it's even if you can ignore the fact that because of the leases and the structure of the building and everything else these are just come not separate units one cannot be a storm of the other the way it was being used even though earlier in the st part of their arm of the try to stay with a place to store the drugs but they acknowledge here that based on their theory this is where the bulk of the drug activity was going on and it wasn't you can describe it as the store room to store drugs it was an act it were an activity occurred and then with regard to the protective sweep and i've asked if the court criteria of a protective sweep let alone say at each stage of the sweep here's what we knew which is every all that my new shit is very relevant under garrison to when the search should have stopped and when they should have gotten another  thank you thank you thank you counsel the matter submitted at this time