with respect to the plea agreement issue that i have raised i am not familiar with what other districts do other united states attorney's offices do but it is a common practice when entering into cooperation agreements that the language that i have cited objectionable is placed into objectionable or having to do with having to interfere more with the right of a defendant and his counsel to inquire into and investigate the facts of the of those alleged co defendants and witnesses against the accused to choose to go to trial let's assume for the purpose of this argument that you're right on the merits of that issue what's the it's a due process violation and i'm assuming that it's for the purpose of the question i'm asking that it was a constitutional violation for the government to put this i'm cooperating witnesses support the proposition you just put forward which is that we should presume prejudice i have cited all the authority in the in the brief so that i let's assume for the purposes of my next question the prejudice you could have asked the court for relieved that provision for purposes of interviewing the witnesses could have gone forward you'd have cross examination of the witnesses that they came to see and and then we'd be able to see if there was prejudiced so it seems to me and i appreciate your comment that there are a number of smaller steps you could have taken or the court could have taken short unsavory practice i can't tell you what i would have discovered with the interviews and so forth and it is true that i could i presume that i could have asked for a continuance but the case had been pending before but the issue that troubles me in this case is i think your print identification and it troubles me in two ways one it seems to me that it's troublesome that the identification w made without any foundation that's true point one but on the opposite side it also troubles me that a holding to that effect when almost undo what is one of the major was imposed that fundamental fairness requires a more stringent evidence three days with respect to these matters i'm not sure what you mean by how that impacts on the and c i c database well it really i think because most people have known if you have a match you have a foundation very own name but that wasn't me so the government's going to have to holly and foundational evidence on reliability of the database i have no i think what the government is going to have to in fact the fingerprints of this defendant that's not a difficult task to undertake we do it in allegations of prior convictions in the state courts here in arizona all the time and it's or the printout evidence they don't have any direct linkage is that correct that it that's the way that appears to me and then there are a couple of faxes from apparently from washington that i submitted in a supplemental excerpt simply because the guidelines are now advisory instead of mandatory would we need to address this conviction issue on appeal i think a print conviction issue is acceptable we do have to we do have to have some indicia of reliability and i would submit under these circumstances that the defendant has taken the position that this is not him and there certainly has to be some reliable evidence and a fax from washington i don't think should be considered reliable and i don't think the court ought to be allowed to take to dish will notice of that matter just like you're down to under a minute did you want to save any time for rebuttal i do not but i do want to address some comments that the court made at sentencing just to give you the context of what we're talking about and i am referring to the sentencing that that took place on march twenty second two thousand and four the judge indicated with respect to addressing these prior conviction issues he had already determined that there were prior conviction it looks like i'm running out of time but in any event i would address you to page thirteen fourteen of the sentencing transcript with respect to the judge's comments because i think there are no lightning in terms of the context in which we're we're dealing thank you  filed a motion and tell the day of the trial did not even request a hearing or a ruling on the motion until the government had closed the case which was essentially the end of the friday before trial which was four days before trial that two of the witnesses had declined to be interviewed and that one had not responded to the request there was no clear er but the language did not preclude different counsel from contacting the witnesses and when counsel had every opportunity to ask for remedies by the district court but did not so there  wonderful thing or print matching linking up a lawyer from oregon where the bombing of the trains and madrid and they were just flat wrong so the question is can i just accept a piece of paper because it comes from the f b i or do you need someone to come and give it some context to give every liability the government wants to make you are that in this case you do not need challenge the only challenge attempted challenge was to the qualifications of the fingerprint examiner however dependent minute no basis upon which the court would have found