issue but i would like to st briefly address that issue especially in light of the vault twenty j letters that the government has recently filed the only issue that's left is  circuit in for he disagreed and came out the other way looking at both cases they both essentially analyzed the identical supreme court precedents and simply came to different misdemeanor domestic violence conviction but that's just not true there's a very good reason why he would not have known and i thought as for not making this as clear in the brief as i could have at the time of m valencia's state battery conviction in two thousand and thirteen the law in the th circuit was that a conviction for battery based on offense it's touching did not meet the standard for a misdemeanor crime  eat us from two thousand and three so for a decade prior to mister lensky us state battery conviction the conviction didn't qualify so he was not in a prohibited category following new developments in supreme court case law so based on that i think there is certainly evidence that suggest he would not know that it's he was in this prohibited category  reviewing a motion to suppress here and i feel like you're asking me to reach things that you know get there before we even deal with the specifics if i look at your brain from what you're officer could not legally have stopped him based on windows that you can't see and or primarily that the detention extended beyond the time necessary to check the turn to that right now well we believe that there was not basis based on what the officer knew what the time there was not sufficient evidence to issued a traffic stop for tinted windows that the tinted window statute in california is very complicated th who called in the interpreter on her own she offered being start there yes he was having difficulty understanding when she was saying a fix it ticket even in england english i've never heard the term fix it ticket so i'm i would have not understood what she was talking saying i mean you would be making me the opposite argument if you just if you someone a ticket and then they and you sign at in your promise to appear ethics that check and i happen to know what i think ticket is you go get  was the district court concede all of those arguments that you're making and the courts said let's start from the rules that assuming all of these things were on the whole it was an unlawful stop it was an unlawful detention and here we factor when the question is really whether flight purchased the take the illegality of because this court has never said flight in and of itself does that the government certainly is making that argument when you regard the garcia what this court said was the flight in this case justified the the waiter stop and search but that's not what we're dealing with here he again was dealing with a whole host of for the planned about the fact that the defendant had failed to submit to police authority at any point right and then took off and didn't fact create a dangerous situation the court spent pages in this crossing how he refused to submit  purge any taint from any illegal search as that may have occurred before he attempted to flee well that's right whether there was a sufficiently intervening independent events that would have permitted the later flight is a sufficiently intervening event that then purchased the tape right but the issue here is that on the record before us the district court went past all the illegal conduct to resolve th or in response to judge callahan's question are you say no no no this court sitting here on the kill can actually reach those questions and rule as a matter of law on the record that's presently before us and i  had an evidentiary hearing and we're appealing that your honor we didn't feel that was necessary before that was not the basis of the court's ruling and even the government has conceded here that there are enough gaps in the record that did not find that there was probable cause for the search or i think more relevant here a reasonable suspicion for this and for and the duration during this up itself to know there are no findings and not regarded although however again the court can might be an extension of the present cases that we have i don't think that it would be your honor but i've i believe that both r c m mcalinden i think that this case really follows directly mclendon it took it further and mcclinton said that it doesn't matter if it's six karachi here if you even have a defendant who just walked away when the police asked him to stop that is enough that constitutes flight that would be sufficient to purchase any and so i think that this is really between garcia and mcalinden at worst it certainly is a more obvious flight from law enforcement  or considered in the clinton who are against the individuals did nothing more than walk away from law enforcement officers when they got to the spot here you have actual finding by the district court that mr valencia life posed an extreme danger to and i would say that what what mr mr valencia has criticisms of this conduct of the stock well down to are they boil down to a tax on reasonable suspicion it officer jensen h and did she have cause to consent to conduct a dog snap and conduct the dots now and i would point this court's attention to a strike where the supreme court said that that more than the mere absence of a cause some of the this is just not in the area that is in there of asa cases that would be considered structural particularly given the strong presumption that even errors that is that indicate an individual's constitutional rights are not structural so clear that mr belin you know would have known that he was convicted of an offense that involves the use written to use of physical force against somebody was that we have domestic relationship the conviction dr the documents indicate that he willfully and i'm awfully used force  believe i have to check your honor if he had not gotten acceptance of responsibility i believe the low end of the guidelines would have been around eighteen months but i would have to check goes the government spent some time discussing the clinton case and suggested that all mr clinton did in the case was walk away from the police that's not what happened in mclendon after refusing to comply with any police orders whatsoever as police were approaching him he moved his hands to his waistband took going out of his waistband long it and and the cops later recovered the gun which they said was