identifying his assailant at a future trial for two reasons first this court held in bonino romero that puerto rico sovereignty status under the double jeopardy clause is relevant to pre test the local court suppression of the identification evidence does not bar its submission its mission in this federal case because federal prosecutors are not a party or in privy with a party to the local court proceedings the defendant agrees that the doctrine of collateral estoppel and not double jeopardy governs this case well it seems that yes the court does have sufficient facts in order to reverse the district court's judgment dismissing the excuse me suppressing evidence to hold that there was no privity in this case based on the fact that the district court actually against since jago clone their local counterparts in fact  communication specifically in the near remeron it's says whether there's a significant relationship between the federal in puerto rico prosecutors during the local suppression hearings in other cases such as suppressing the evidence and remain to the district court for a further factual development of weather high i would assume that it's based on the filings in the puerto rico court of appeals and the fact that there was no evidence that was marshalled at any point to suggest that federal prosecutors were involved in the process and also the de so this isn't before the district court but before this court the defendant has helli has proffered a number of pieces of evidence with respect to the local proceedings against sense iago cologne and none of that evidence even as proffered before this or establishes a close relationship between the federal prosecutors and the local prosecutors at the time of the initial suppression hearing at best these on what other representative of the federal government they didn't put in an appearance in the revocation of probation hearing and mr sense how clones other federal case until five months after that hearing so there's simply no evidence to suggest substantial control over the local proceedings nor would that sort of logically make sense the local charges against since jago cologne had to do with attempted murder of puerto rico police officer  says like one year romero there is no particular interest of the federal government in a local murder he said the time that those charges were brought so the sort of variety of factors an inference is that could be made is that there is no evidence  certainly not at this point in time in this record as it exists i'd like to briefly say something about the timeliness of the government's appeal as well so the government filed this notice of appeal within thirty days november tenth order which materially amended the original october fourth suppression order extended suppression from not only an out of court identification and the line up to an in court identification as this court is held in constant as the federal standard is there is a big difference between suppressing a pretrial and if occasion or saying that it's unduly suggestive and prohibiting a victim from identifying a witness from identifying a potential perpetrator at trial it's a very high standard there has to be a high degree of prejudice the puerto rico court of appeals in its decision suppressing evidence under puerto rico law did not focus on that factor or consider that factor whatsoever therefore what the government is seeking here is a vindication of the appropriate application of federal law and the determination of whether or not under federal standards the defendant should be excuse me the victim should be apologizes to this court for failing to file the certification after sightly the time that the notice of appeal was filed as soon as i found out that the government had failed to file that certification at the time of the appeal we follow the certification the next day as apologize for that but at all times the government has complied with the substance of the rule and this court has said in cases like rest of us that the important factor is that there is a rigorous evaluation of the merits of the government's appeal that process was until the solicitor general approved that appeal this court has said that the thirty seven thirty one requirements are important but they are to be liberally construed in our position is that it does not  that the government filed elite certification or file the certification after a file that's initial brief and on top of that your honors these are this is an important issue whether or not the court can basically control a federal proceeding as a result of suppressing evidence before the federal government was even involved and i see my time is up may finish that thought or others it's an important issue for this court to decide whether or not local proceedings can in effect control federal proceedings governments including the additional fifty nine days that they waited to file the appeal so i think the prejudice is inherent and that continued the lake and mr santiago colognes continued incarceration the primary justification advanced by the government for failing to comply with the certification requirement  the certification requirement your honor yes judge i can't dispute that what i would say though is that under rule three eight lakh a certification can require dismissal the eleventh circuit in salisbury and the tenth circuit in vegas have specifically rejected the factors probably for the court today by the government in salisbury they said that simple negligence is not enough and the tenth circuit in vegas said that and experience prosecutor and government assurances regarding taking thirty seven thirty one appeal seriously is not enough and those are the exact investigations of the government has advanced today and so i think those those cases support dismissal on this matter   for more than two years at this point in time and so that's why the this appeal and his continued incarceration and their feel year to add here to the certification requirement does prejudice mr zanti because they are continuing to dispute the george i think the sort of education requirement in is there to assure that the government has gone through the proper channels they haven't announced why in going through those profit channels they haven't found or they did not find that the certification wasn't filed at the district court level their argument that they did review this properly that they did you know think about the delay that it would cause in the case and the fact that mr santiago cologne was incarcerated for that extensive period of time so that when i would be my answer to this court's question the court framed the issue as whether allowing the government surreality gate the suppression issue violated collateral estoppel and that's a very different set of circumstances then the today the government never asked to relate a gate the suppression issue at the district court the federal district court level in fact it's stupid to the use of the transcripts it admitted that it had used the commonwealth appellate court had used federal law it never claimed that opposition to the motion to suppress what it primarily is at tack the commonwealth of puerto rico appellate court's application of puerto rico law so it asked decision and constant but i was never raised in the response and opposition to the motion suppressed or at least it wasn't the primary argument that was raised by the government in those proceedings again they never once claimed that there was never a full and fair opportunity in the common constitutional issues the relationship between the federal government and the commonwealth government solidify that there is indeed an easy relationship between the commonwealth and the federal government and once you make that finding that funny is important for not only double jeopardy but for collateral and enforces criminal lost in covering its inhabitants it's not acting as an independent political community like a state but is an eternity of the federal government so if if we were to be the supreme court's opinion as it is the supreme court going out of its way to stress that it was focused exclusively on the single source doctrine for double jeopardy purposes and that it wasn't making any broad pronouncement in other areas do you have any other basis for as well as the what what's different if that's the case if we're putting such a billet once and that we're looking at this case the defendant move to suppress the defendant has the burden of putting in evidence that would show the basis for russian what evidence he appoints to any degree of involvement in the federal government in the actual prosecution of the case in the commonwealth courts that isn't routine in literally thousands of cases across the states and in actual state so you're getting this agency relationship with correct and i think the premise of my question if you would be aware that is if we put that to one side yes trying to how is this different from thousands literally thousands of cases so here there was a puerto rico department of justice employee that was the prosecutor in the case the government's filed a notice of appearance and mr santiago colognes companion revocation proceedings in that case it followed the motion indicating that it was in contact and coordination with the officers charging that coordinated charging structure also supports pretty and communication between the commonwealth prosecutor and the federal prosecutor who is actually a commonwealth employees as well so all those factors contribute a long with the agency relationship to finding him pretty in federal government pretty well at this the holding and sanchez vi it was specifically limited to double jeopardy but the rationale the court is is much broader than that once you find that the source of the prosecute federal law and on the preceding pages before appendix page thirty we also discussed how it seemed to misapply puerto rico law itself but our primary argument was a lack of applying federal law in the in the second well it doesn't make a difference with respect to the commonwealth proceeding other than the fact that it seems that they misapply their own law but it makes a great deal of difference with respect to whether or as the defendant argues that application in the commonwealth proceeding can have a  indicated in our twenty a j letter with respect to courier versus virginia the supreme court appears to be heading away from the application of collateral estoppel in criminal cases certainly the trial with respect which is the procedural posture of this particular case c was a post trial circumstance in which jeopardy had already attached and as a result we urge this court to reaffirm the case of one year romero as it has done countless times reversed the judgment of the district court and either find that there was no