case is about the out modified categorical pro choice i'm happy to report as almost a unique position for me as a career but a public defender of the law is firmly on my side in this matter case law definitively call the problem with this statement is we don't know when callback said it to whom under what circumstances and what is significant it occurred before the change of lead that he made the statement the make the statement of police report did he make it to that the most likely scenario is he sitting there with the p l o during the interview then p l o says well what did you do this is the course after the change of plea and called back says this is what i did and the government if they think about it is not going to want to come up the defendant stands up and said yes i was convicted of this and i have the elements of the crime were that i gave this rock cocaine and got twenty dollars that would not work and wouldn't work it wouldn't work in martin this court's opinion that martinez was a defendant did was right on his change of police form that he committed a drug drug trafficking offense and of course that that that didn't qualify because it doesn't tell us enough about the ultimate question which  i was convicted of a crime because these are the elements i took rock cocaine out of my pocket and i sold it for twenty dollars to this undercover police officer would that that would not work in a wouldn't work any more than  because only mouth it was out of his own mouth without any objection in the federal court under oath why wouldn't that be sufficient because we don't want to get first of all of course don't want to so this dynamic were engaging in that kind of in what i did i don't know if he's under oath he's a liar and he can be convicted for perjury but why do we have to go through all of these others in the persons right in the federal court and under oath admit the elements of the crime i don't see why you say we're cabined in that we have to go back and find the state proceedings within the federal court we've got him well these are cases says we have to do well the martinez case i think that that was in favor what's definitely implied in that case is that if the guy can't write honestly you might have a different case if you get up and if they're in federal court and admit that you committed a crime consonant with the career of founder rights i would still be out there probably are you not going to work but that's not the case i have here let me see if i understand what you're saying before the federal sentencing this is the sale of narcotics controlled subs found he was brought up it's in the p s r you objected to that we have we have jacked it there in the first round of appeals i don't think there are any objections it came back on the rebound because the state the objections that we're raising on appeal and we said the same thing a sense of not sensing the argument focused on where the government's document where the government's documentation was that enough in a modified sense but we did say you know that they were going to put the government approved and during the sentencing we said that they didn't need ok you objected then paragraph thirty so ordinarily when there is an objection to one of the paragraphs is disagreement the district judge either has to hold a hearing or that we're going to put the government to its burden of proving that the conviction and the i'm right in paragraph thirty meets the federal definition and what the district court held was that the government meant to burden by way of submission of the documents that are part of the record now i step the second step would be if they don't get back to the federal pretrial recitation then perhaps we should consider that and but that isn't relevant here apparently an objection was made paragraph thirty that's exactly where i was going  the end of it and that then you go down to that modified approach and all we have on that just to secure your argument here is a statement and say p s r enough mark is right you can't even use the guy's hand opinion i think i think the more probably an opinion is that collateral sources so i mean with that theory in your best argument well your honor that's a piece or is part of that traditional process it's part of that continuum the change of plea the investigation the sentencing by the court and the court relied on that document as part of the judicial process is part of the defendant's process going through the system to make its determination to determine what the sentence is and the probation officer has an obligation to district judge or trial court receives information this time was close the defense letters from people other other materials that are in the file and that's we just don't know the quality i mean i guess i don't see it in this record that would that would give me the feel the response i would have so that your honors the fact that one of the issues that this circuit has had with regard to using state vs ours and the factual recitation by state and federal charges that typically a probation stating what happened in this case not from the police report and we would argue that that rises or raises the legitimacy where the credibility of the information and really leaves no and i would argue one quickly what happened in this case that when he pled there was actually no other information with regard to what happened in this case other than what is in this piece of art in terms pacifically as to what he had pled guilty to and when you have information from the defendant in a document that's adopted by the court that is prepared by an independent unbiased arm of the court investigative arm of the court that that is sufficient for the district court we're looking and trying to go back and determine exactly what occurred that that's reasonable  but when we are charged with this responsibility of going back and trying to figure out what happened fifteen years ago i would argue we need we need to give someone g m c to these to this documentation and the way this the information that we're full listening in on this case i undercover police officer that sounds to me like when the judge says well tell me what you did why you pleading guilty i sold twenty dollars to an undercover twenty dollars worth of cocaine to one undercover police officer and when you take that point in this case as well unfortunately where it's just verbatim mirrors the language the statute but when you take that in conjunction with the p s r and the specific information and it's not the defendant pled guilty to argue that i gather highly that the state court judge would then say i consider