were only those facts that were admitted by the defendant at the time of his plea and that at the time of this plea he admitted that he was a deportee and found in the united states so we have the question then can the court take judicial notice of the kidnapping conviction yes we do have that and we do have that question your honor that is that is number one and number two we all further notice there's been a lot of who has the burden  the government has the burden on that once we object to that that prior conviction which was done which was done by phone the objections that were filed the before the court we objected to the criminal record there were the prior convictions we also  a probation officer have probation officer have the documents and said let me see and the court looked at him right so the court could have given a continuance to the government and or i guess could have denied that and we'd be reviewing whether that there was an abuse of discretion in denying that motion to continue but any right did you now eventually we've got the document here your objection as i understand it was th correctly i know at least one time so that the government had ample opportunity and noticed that we were challenging the prior conviction for them to produce any kind of record certified abstract anything of that nature and not so much object to this court taken judicial notice the problem also becomes is that we don't know what the what the what the district court judge took notice of since i was president i don't know what he reviewed i don't government consulates present here today  prior criminal record as a fact that the government had not proved or presented any evidence to the two to the defendant at any time prior to this particular hearing as well as the fact that i didn't have an opportunity to review it to make any particular this time will finally get the message and produce what is necessary and the result is not going to be different is it well the result will be different now now that we have  date there your client standing right there and everyone it's all talking about that and then i guess your clients had three removals that are in the p s r right and they're all subsequent to the date of the aggravated felony and i understand the objection there to basically be two that he didn't have this kidnapping he didn't have the aggregated aggravated felony so i'm just wondering on this first why wasn't it clear from this record that he had netted the nine hundred ninety eight no one said anything about that which clearly puts it subsequent to the aggregate aggravated felony if not let's say that it's not how why wouldn't this be subject to harmless error in that he's got their removal set are all subsequent to that how are you ever how you ever where counsel and before the district court stated that quote the reason for his return was actually one thousand nine hundred eight when he had the last deportation because his mother was gravely ill and she actually passed away nine hundred ninety eight and this was when he was then later on after handed and deported shortly after she passed away two months after she passed away two months before he actually was deported your argument is that's a binding admission on the part of this defendant yes y look even though the fact of the matter is where the government is is showing that justice is part of the overall uncontroverted and overwhelming evidence in this case because actually there was no deportation removal in one thousand nine hundred eight bi removal it could be a conviction several removals subsequent correct and then later alaska and the last removal could still be premised on the earlier conviction exactly on and in this case were no removals before the aggravated felony but what do you make of covina with respect to coding your honor this case is it is very similar the facts are very similar to a case that came out after the briefs were submitted to the court and that's this a paper martinez case where the error was it was obviously a pretty error and it was reviewed for harmless error in the fact there were similar to this and that in the paper the defendant pled guilty never admitted the actual date of the removal but the court of law told the other evidence that that again was  sufficient to get over the hurdle correct because of the rule thirty two the court can consider these and objected to facts as as as true the court can rely on these undisputed facts of the probation report and the only issue that defendant had at that sentencing with the immigration information was that he had had previously had legal status and issue unrelated to to the deportation dates and i believe this was similar to what had taken place in the subpoena martinez case again decided after this case that that was sufficient for the court to consider and finding the date of remov ask you know i mean it was your burden but then the court said no let's just get it taken care of and i'm not i don't want to continue it's not just look at what we have here but then no one even provides us with that so we have to even get out a you know if it's a review in no question it should have been made a part of the record in fact it should all i know i think helen's counsel saying how do we even know that that's what the court looked at how do we know that i hate to answer a question that refers to matters outside the record your honor information officer is no longer is in iraq so that person knew for sure what she provided to the court so that the folks  i say no because i don't think it gives the defense a chance to fairly take a look at the documents to  verify what whether i was on this to defense objection at that time was it that the documents didn't say what that he was convicted of it or was it that the court couldn't get that on it sounds there was no objection to records is that they were then available for both sides to inspect at that time to make sure that the court simply wasn't looking at a at a minute order or some handwritten notes by  someone after the fact for example somebody you know maybe a deputy clerk or something like that and they do have the abstract of judgment from the state prison and they came that it was a three year sentence for kidnapping again i