the form of the weapon recovered from an apartment occupied by mr harrison's friend and should have suppressed statements that mr harrison made that were inculpatory second that the trial court should not have meted out a sentence that was mandatory under the arm career criminal act third that mr harrison should have been permitted to to remind the jury during the course of the trial that there was to be imposed upon him if convicted a mandatory penalty about which the trial court had no just no discretion and finally that the trial court should have instructed the jury that the gun must be in or affect commerce at the time of the offense and not at any time prior to the offense as to the latter point your hon i reading our briefs over the weekend was very embarrassed to find that we had not discharged our obligation to the court which we did in the trial court but not in our briefs to tell you that there is contrary authority both from this court and from the supreme court and that we had interposed that argument preservative lee in hopes of raising a lopez argument later i apologize to the court for that oversight those cases are scarboro against united states for thirty one us five sixty three and united states against castor line one hundred three for that second seventy seven your honor as to the suppression question the search and seizure in this case presented some sort of unique and intertwined arguments for issues under the fourth and fifth amendment without being furnished a miranda warning the court the trial court later determined that that set of questions violated his rights under brenda and that his answers must be suppressed harrison was then physically taken to the residence just so that we're playing i know the course of read the brief but the point of the questions were to establish where he lived and where he lived was relevant because the probation officer said he had changed residences and had reported his new residence and the probation officer wanted to conduct to conduct a search at the new residence in order to look for a weapon that the probation officers had been told harrison had so he made incriminating disregard these statements they still had probable cause to believe that that's where he was very well your honor i think on a fair reading of the record officer thompson testified a couple of times in the pretrial proceedings and i think both times he said that miss durham had said he stays with me sometimes but that to make sure to to to put the final clincher on the point he had turned into mr harrison and asked him those questions and at one point he offered an argument that well if mr harrison had been mirandized and refused answers there were other things we might have done he made a sort of an inevitable discovery kind of argument but they never did those other things that they might have done so it's our respectful position your honor that at least the officer didn't think that whatever information he obtained from his durham was sufficient to satisfy him at that time that he had grounds to search her apartment as the residence of mr harris the next step in the proceedings was to take mr harrison to the residence he was seized and it was unfair from the record whether the officers were seizing him strictly under their authority has some of the officers were department of corrections officers who had the right to seize them in execution of the county warrants but in either event i think everybody was in agreement that the standard obligation of the officers at the scene was to then return mr harrison to the official custody of the state prefers of presenting him to a magi and taken there we respectfully submit to your your honour's that that was an unlawful seizure that the obligation of the officers was to return him to custody for purposes of presenting him to a magistrate and for no other purpose while at the residence mr harrison was questioned again before being given his miranda warnings here again the district court food is that those statements had to be excluded nevertheless the two statements excluded by the fifth district court were found in a separate ruling by the district court to justify the search of the premises it's our respectful conclusion that those two sets of solutions ought to have been paralleled up and lined up together that the district court ought to have concluded that the search was on lawful based upon the miranda violations that the district court found analysis requires there to be in the fourth amendment context probable cause to think that you will find contraband or evidence of a crime and to think that you will find it in a specific location so that they had something that a probation is that i think in the probation context you need reasonable suspicion to think that you will find contraband or evidence of a crime and you need reasonable suspicion to think that the place that you're about to research is the residence of the of the probation and it was on that point that the if it was the location that they didn't have reasonable suspicion through yes you are in other words the second set of questions that were put to him in the location where they're going to confirm the you know are those your your clothes in the closet seeking to or durham who was then nearly a full term pregnancy if you don't you know if this isn't his gun if you don't tell us this is his gun you're going downtown now the trial court found that mr harris mr harris testimony was he heard this and he changed his mind and said ok ok it's my guy and he and he's not a model of articulation at that point in the in the transcript but i submit to the court that it was clear air for the district court to say that there was no nexus between that statement by the officers to mr durham and mr harrison's decision to change his mind i think though not in the most architect of the terms used very plain in his testimony that his reason for changing his mind was to take  well i guess voluntariness is the issue your honor it seems to be the relevant question is the state of mind of mr harris and mr harris and i believe although not clearly plainly enough articulated at the hearing that he would not have taken responsibility for the gun for his desire to take the pressure off him as m part of the suppression issues and also the army for a criminal act application i guess i would before making a statement either as i just pointed out to the court whether or not there's any specific questions that the court would like the government to address criminal act i think that the court the district court correctly found concerning the statements that this case was much more the facts of the case was much more like mcshane and like  scuse me think of politics your honor and also that the court correctly found that the armed group criminal act did apply in this case based on the fact that the defendant did have t the defendant specific lee stated that he did in fact assault the woman victim by using a weapon specifically a firearm in the case and i think that under shepherd  in my twenty one seconds your honor i would like to point out to the court the plain terms of the statute require total for prior convictions for an armed career criminal designation there has to be one which is an element of the offense and then one twenty four so as that you have to