have pleased the court counsel the names daniel how awesome with the federal public defender's office i represent you know greco and before we get into the issues that we've raised we'll address the rule ten matter that came up and i have to say it the disputed materials in this case the earliest of them came documentary one hundred and seventy seven and that was april th two thousand and nineteen that's wrong after the notice of appeal is filed indeed indeed it was after were already part of the record and the arm that the government has never made it will ten assertion it is never articulated a basis for relief thousand hearing judge so i don't think there's a functionally equivalent of our request for relief that allows the government now to tack on ten material well ten to yes it permits us to supplement the omission i understood that circuit rule ten requires though for her request for relief to proceed any action by this court and so i think that there are a lot of problems to go ahead and find some way to let this material least we've got a problem that the probation officer is asserting in documentary one hundred and seventy seven that the materials were indeed presented to and considered by the district court because the materials were never docketed that can't be anything but new evidence because there's no record of this material prior to the april th submission to the district court that includes the probation officers assertion and then attaches the nd supplemental  sent to judge paul meyer and there's no record evidence saying that judge line in whatever ever received or considered it so that's all very fundamentally a problem here and judge if i may move on to she received the materials or didn't we need to look instead to what the warrant was and the tach materials to it that judge line and weber had and we have nothing we only have a single document where judge leinen weber orders a want to be issued based on a text order from judge paul meyer judge lyman webber is responsible for looking to the four corners of the materials that are presented to him with a warrant request and there's nothing there time not the same day a month earlier judge line and weber's warrant was issued however under basic th amendment jurisprudence a war is invalid if it's not supported by probable cause and this is the fundamental the fact and what judge line wiper did because we've so if i may add one further point about judge lyman webber and that is if his is the valid warrant then the government has a waiver problem on this because it's never done anything to defend judge line in webbers determination it's put all its  clarification that i think have been confused by the defense here there are not multiple judges involved in issuing arrest warrant in this case what happened as it was made clear in the status hearing and the detention hearing that was held on march weekend and so it did not actually get processed until the following monday and so therefore you see the two docket entries on the district one with a minute order and then subsequently the arrest warrant that follows and judge palmer says i did this on the basis is i think that there's reason to detain the defendant as i saw in the report which special report is there were a variety of threatening and harassing messages that were sent  are two separate bodies here we don't have control over the special reports for inadvertence it was not filed on the docket given the after hours presentation to judge palmer and so when this case when up on appeal probation notice this and added it to the docket east dates that disputes over what was presented to the district court should be resolved by the district court and it was in this case there was a motion to strike it from the district court dockets judge line and webber denied that motion on the grounds that it was presented to an considered by on march th a report was filed requesting that a warrant the issue so every single one of the subsequent reports provides notice to the court the parties of the prior reports that were provided to the court it also makes a lot of logical s is done by the individual judge's chambers was docketed on march th the weekend then happened march th was the following monday and the process of creating the arrest warrant and then docketing it happened on that on that monday march th and again that's discussed in the detention hearing that happens on march th so that's all in the transcript in a discussion between probation and the court or what limited purpose of clarifying the condition including the words risks and rd parties that are included within that condition consistent with pickert and supports other thank you thank was the judge who issued the bench warrant it's his signature on it we look at the materials that were before him not the things of probation office in the government service were sent to a different judge because judge lining webber is responsible for assessing probable cause independently that he  doctrine and nothing asserted by the government to say that something told to a judge somehow gets to the ears and eyes of another judge so that there is some judicial collective knowledge and that's just something that's a glossier that does not take into a fact the judge lining weber eighty three dollars i only a warrant or something it's not about a notice like the government says it's about jurisdiction that's not the th amendment so to have a review of the issuing judges materials is what's required not i don't even know why it was necessary once judge palmer orders the bench memo to issue issues upon monday morning then she should issue a warrant or a summons under what the statute requires i don't understand the multi step process but this is what they refer to this hearing the judge palmer had the just the direction hearing and say that it's very clear that she considered the special report they get there by interlinear getting the word special report the judge considers the police officer's report and we've laid this out on page nine of the in that makes sense the government cannot change what the meaning of that text is an exchange between the defense attorney and the judge those people present at the time the government never stood up and corrected the district court and said we're not talking about reports that we're talking about the special report that everybody