woman with no medical background training or experience possessed specialized knowledge of prescription drugs and it fact the court emphasized this three different times you know it's nine pages of it drugs which is a false premise how would they act when consumers came to this store the cigar box what would they do in her shoes and he goes through an hour of she she's not asking the customers their sensitivities to dosages she's not asking the how frequently they do this all based upon the flawed premise that she knows this a controlled substance it's undisputed she heck no such knowledge and did not plead to that mr leonard the only one fact that i'd like you to respond to the only fact that i can see that supports that the possible enhancement i'm not sure in any way sure that it does but i want to get your reaction to it sure comes in the course of janice smith's testimony which i know you have issues with ok but she does testify does she not that her own son our terrible experience a few days before and that she had to bring him to the hospital us only what we'll call a partial proffer a court of proffer because what he did was he stopped the cross examination of the middle at any early point said we're done witness can leave the stand he literally  that and then when counsel tried to make proffer he said repeatedly to him i've already made a credibility finding i've already made it you can make your statements for the record i've already determined she's creditor so counsel then was able to get into the record at least the credibility but it's worse when counsel tried to make a record of an offer proof which we have to do because there are before this court you would say where's your offer of proof he attempted to make it up or proof and the judge gave what i w that if you do not move on to another area meaning don't give me an offer proof so we can preserve it for appeal under six only witness who's relevant to the important issues as justice pointed out i will stop your presentation and get the ultimate sentence in this case meaning if you try to make an offer proof you try to make a record on the only witnesses relevant i'm going to set your client right now that is not fundamental fairness that is not to process we understand that at the sentencing hearing our right to cross examination is somewhat diminished but the concept is still fundamental fairness you can't say i'm not going to hear it from you i'm not going to let you make an offer proof and what's worse your honor sir is that if you read the transcript you'll know that earlier the judge to something that's it's remarkable and i'm precedent i've never seen it i don't think you have another counsel is giving his argument he provided us marshals as a means to stop him from break death or serious bodily harm you can't work backwards from the result and then say gee we have a car accident so therefore it makes a stand amendment right to cross examine her but nevertheless he was not there was no i mean she was privy to that conversation that that information was communicated to him in any way shape or form so that  i submit there there was no evidence the government throughout certain things at the sentencing hearing and i think the judge kind of fell into that which was the the  was not objected to by the government but that district court refused to extend the surrender date then i actually became a father mercy motion in this court and before the seventh circuit to extend his surrender da that the synthetic drugs the synthetic marijuana was having on the young people who were buying them and smoking she related her own experience with her own son let's smoke the substances need to go to the hospital she testified that indeed she found her son bent over frozen couldn't speak with the ice in the back of his head called nine one one the paramedics took him to central to pay child support were received care you know she went evidence at sentencing showed yes about the middle of the page yes i do yes bet miss smith janice meth made motion aware of the risk of selling synthetic marijuana the or perhaps the sentence wasn't as artfully constructed as it should have been i think it reads miss messmate notion of where the risk of selling synthetic marijuana and dr stephanie others experience dattner and her friend his friend into buying the products saying that there was a sale two packages by two packages you get another one three off for twenty dollars and these were just one gram packages of synthetic drugs normal permitted him to continue the cross examination right there was an opportunity to conduct an impeachment counsel did that with regard to the civil deposition the smith gave in two thousand and thirteen and our point is is that was on a collateral matter with regard to what happened at the hospital when miss miss broader so on there after succumbing to the adverse effects and so when it has come out on cross fit she wasn't even there she didn't see her son's eyes rolled back in his head i believe i mean that was the that was the point of the cross examination that was curtailed my sense was the point of the cross examination was that she did not share with the emergency room staff the fact that her son of smoke these products a synthetic marijuana and was having a poor reaction i mean your average he can still have a minute here you know a second then a few minutes here but i thought his point was that ted had tried to portray to judge normal that she was present for these issues with her own son when in fact when in fact cross examination would have exposed  not i thought it was clear from isthmus testimony that she experienced firsthand the reaction their son had to these products that is that he appeared frozen if you will that's the term she used and that she called nine one one and they went to the hospital her other statements under oath she was consistent with regard to her warning to mrs motion that these were dangerous products that were having terrible effects on young people who came to buy them and  witnesses were in the courtroom ready to be called and the judge wanted to proceed to taking testimony and i think it occurred this is reflected in the transcript counsel wanted to persist in making an argument that the judge was not persisted and presenting an argument the judge asked him to sit down when he refused to sit down the marshals were called one martians call it end enter the defense attorney that he had talked to customers who came to the store about the different harding's that these substances provided and they discussed and had a conversation with regard to the different types of these substances produce knew that the customers were smoking these products he said that the profits are very good they're purchased for about three dollars a package and they could be sold for ten thousand dollars if we grant you all that thought is that speak to the risk issue that that that an requires well i believe it speaks to a judge because it's about he he was aware that the customers these young customers were buying it they were smoking it they're coming to him from the mall and cards which put that and others at risk as the district court noted and with regard to his knowledge he continued to sell the school products in a timebombs to these young customers at their store and with regard to the cross examination if i may counsel for emotion he had an opportunity to make his offer proof he made this offer proof twenty seventeen january fourth and january twenty sixth twenty eight hundred had full opportunity to establish that mr smith's account was unreliable but the fact is she had given consistent statements with regard appropriate and applicable in this case the parties in their sentencing memos addressed it and the judge applied it under the fraud guideline to being one point  one the court understood the dangerous nature of these products and the risks the defendants kind dept opposed to the customers and the enhancement was properly applied current head full opportunity to re  with regard to thirty five fifty three factors the court found the need for a general deterrence outweighed the personal factors and he acknowledged the personal factors with regard to the defendant is not only not able to get that in the record and have a considered by the court he's told preemptively that a decision has already been made on credibility and bias and you can't consider any other evidence is directly on point also your honor the question is whether it's a gross deviation from the standard the care therefore this court is required to consider the circumstances surrounding this motion at the time the evidence is on rebuttal that your police department regularly unannounced would coming to our store all the time and that an individual officer would make personal purchases and there none of them thought there was anything untoward about what was going on none of them given any warnings and furthermore for the deviation or get your honors mr johnson from the king county sheriff's department goes to the store one month i'm sorry ten days after the death of mr dahmer goes in there doesn't tell this motion about the doctor says he's conducting the investigation and it's unrefuted that even he doesn't think any thing else on torts going to have he doesn't bring to miss most attention there might be something wrong with these products are dangerous but these products still thank you your honor with when the core question mr schneider whether there was any evidence that mr condit was aware of the risk he cited to the fact that he sol