additional authority beyond the comment for this point in other words is there or is there any case authority anything beyond the comment that what what would  support your position i don't have any cases i your honor nor do i need any to prevail because this court has recognized that the absence of precedent doesn't preclude plane error review or prevailing one plane error when the p two point one no three a in for a one two but i do think that the amendment amendments are ninety five that added no thirty eight to the guidelines in two thousand and fifteen completely supports our reading it i don't think you need to go there because the text is so clear but that provides further explanation about the breadth of the intended no for the no to apply as well as the purpose of a eighty four in ramon is dramatically less clear than the provisions at issue here and not only that but the supreme court had expressly reserved the very question as an open question in that issue in the middle in two circuits at found the error to be not a plane so that's what ok number two is far from delving into the inner workings of the guidelines as the panel and ramon was suggesting it had to do for analysis all i'm suggesting here is you just need to read two guidelines and apply it to help with keisha notes this is not particularly complex i think everyone just missed it below these are directly and plainly on point state historic drug schedules and state court decisions about whether or not a jury in many is required for particular driving that's a far more involved endeavor then just applying the guidelines in order wait let me get to the hear isn't that essentially what you're saying now application of ten takes us to chapter four and application note three a right it says to when you're applying these predicate prior crimes of violence or if you only use them repeat that in application no ten to two k two point one that only makes it a more plain i think your honor well it strikes me as why would they feel it's necessary to include the sent that if it was so playing you're saying it makes more playing if it was already playing by looking at application note three that they had to be counted separately to be counted why didn't they also include the you know if they're going to emphasize that by repeating it why didn't they repeat the nd the sentence of at that they should know three that you're relying on the one that they have to be that they would independently have received criminal history points that concerns me it makes me think that it's not it's not all that clear or the authors didn't think it was all that clear that application no three and repeat that point and not repeat the other doesn't that it does not suggest that one applies the mil other does them no not a not at all let me give you a couple responses to that i think st sort of just as a text right that the one and it exists in a world in which no three a dozen clarify this independent points rule that is you just apply chapter four then you come back but also here's this other then in doing so clarified that we're only going to count as predicates crimes of violence that independently receive criminal history points i think this additional sentence is simply an indication that all of these predicate offense guidelines whether it's the career offender guideline the firearms to k two dollars the illegal re entry to l one dollar the have these types of provisions that ramp up for multiple prior predicates but they the turn on this single sentence roll in it's reminder i think that that you apply the rule we just said which is is you what you get a crime of i don't predicate if it independently would receive criminal history points but that's not the end of the story right you could have two crimes of violence contained within a single sentence that independently received criminal history points but you don't get the double bump under these enhanced meant predicate  seems relevant to me if the think about it more but when the application no ten if i'm understanding you correctly was written in  in seventy five dollars in particular and six hundred and thirty would be the other one i would look at and for that history i think it's informative and only reinforces the position that we've advocated for but it does not i don't need it to prevail i think the chapter one it's a description of how these other provisions operate i don't think there's any question that the certainly the government hasn't contended that that that that's a hope that with with application and may have pleased the court i think i'd like to start off where mr r c c constant much of the time and that's the history here i think the history is actually very good for the government on this particular provision so he's correct that in two thousand and one odd no ten that's one no ten comes into being and at that time it's civically references to for a one two and comment no three then in two thousand and seven the no three gets changed and it gets changed to what is currently in no three b and in two thousand and ten the sentencing commission then deletes the reference to comment no three making clear that and they say it's for accuracy which makes clear that the reason that they don't want that reference anymore is they is strike out the comment no three it leaves the four at one point you reference but strikes out the comment no three and it says it's doing that for accuracy because now we've got a guideline this change that's not the reference that it was originally referring to is accurate for how you're going to deal with two k two point one so what specifically saying what's now in three b that is not something we do for two k two point want then two thousand and fifteen that's when we get this new language that's in three a  back in no three or any of the other notes to four at one two they leave an empty we know that they definitely don't want to reference the three b so i don't know why we'd start incorporating three a now one but not three  there's not a reason to do that the fact that they specifically chose to exclude commentary means something here and if you look at the other notes into k two point one in no one there is a specific reference to a commentary noted ten is setting out the rules when it comes to the single sentence when you've got bundled sentences and how we're going to deal with that and it doesn't bring in the succession from no three it says yeah let's look at how it's done in corey one dollar and if it's going to get criminal history we're going to give we're going to account it but it doesn't bring in that exception from the three that says well but it also has to be or points on its own that is not correct and what would be the reason for th couple bundled offenses but if one of their past offenses is a crime of violence or a drug crime we want to set at least some sort of floor that they're going to get for that because they've done something that we don't want mixed with guns before and now they're doing guns again as we want to count at least once even if you have a situation here where you had a crime of violence and it's bundled with one that's not saying you still can't you know then this a three for a position becomes basically a floor and it says so maybe you can't be  a felon you previously did something we don't want you to have guns with and now you're out there with a gun so we're going to bump you up i think that would be the policy reason for doing it at the very least i think if you look at the history and you look at the fact that we have competing one level for acceptance of responsibility which we all know under thirty one dollars it says you have to give two levels you can't just get one and the court went through that and said no we find that's error despite the fact that there wasn't any sort of competing text or anything else and the thirty one point one claim he says that you have to have two levels this court said on plainness that it was a somewhat close call well if the plain text of a guideline with no competing text is somewhat of a close call i think here where you have to be in to looking at the history of these two cops comments to figure out what the conflict is that's requiring more work as ramon said that that is not planar work you're going to need a court case on point in that particular talking about you know whether comment three when it's ready for him to predicate offenses what do you mean whether the stuff the end to get two point one are predicates that's what we're talking about here yes i mean i think that's probably a fair reading i mean i think when you're taught and when it says other sentencing sorry other guidelines with predicate offenses certainly well let me let me suggest that what's happening in took a two point one or certainly predicates whether or not that meant to go beyond that chapter that the went on to say but that doesn't mean that come in three applies and one is that it's because i think comment ten is filling the space or that it's setting out more specific rule about how to create two point one is going to deal when you have these bundled singular offenses and it's basically just saying does it get criminal history points question one it does no reference to no three so we don't think about the exception that set out no three and then it says when you're dealing with a one dollar and two dollars yes they have to be counted separately which is going to much of the same stuff it's in no three but when you're dealing with it has no reference to a three a four a so it's not at all incorporating sort of this it needs to be count separately the fact that you have a singular offense here and it's criminal history points and not and that more specific understanding in comment ten plus the history suggesting if it wanted to bring in the stuff from three it was simply be going to do it s that your argument goes to the plainness of any error in his affair you basically can say probably one i don't think we can see prong one i think it was a tough question and what i'm simply saying is it's an easy question plainness so i don't think you even have to answer it on air but i'm not conceding that that the reading of the statute is as they say particularly in light of the history here where no three was removed from no ten i think our reading is as good if not a better reading than the one that mister thank you thank you again it's not necessary and it would be exceedingly strange for that commission to create by negative implication the rule that the government is suggesting when there is a clear direct broadly applicable and directly on point provision cross referenced in it's a simple as that it's error it's plain and arena for a sentencing is warranted thank you let me yes something on the on the history number of top of my head i think was a two thousand and seven change that removed a cross reference to to then no three b that would have been on was essentially nonsensical in the context because it dealt with another departure provision again i don't think you need any of this history because the text is a natural reading of the plain text it's exceedingly clear to the extent that you look at it i mean seven hundred and ninety five is the one that makes this polluted as to what the commission intended with no three