something about the prejudiced range i'm thinking there's now that we have a pretty came down and it's a statutory maximum there's plenty there are all over the place i buy it every step i have trouble seeing the prejudice i mean spokes on this guy's lawyer and i ask oh i want to verdict form so the jury will tell us beyond a reasonable doubt what the quantity is well they're going to and it's going to be adverse say i want to reversal because it's the judge committed this play there and i get the reversal and we go to trial again we're going to prove why all i do is nail down any the prejudice potentially would be if the jury were to have agreed that he was responsible for one of the drugs but not both right and that's part of my argument when you get two hundred twenty two months because of a great all these accounts violation mainly because the judge is is this deciding the facts of the case in regard to the overt acts when the jury never really comes down to what that what the issue is and so listen garcia talks about how this court reviews that the novel rather than  point there was one load there's a total of six low six total transactions one of them had to do primarily with marijuana some had to do with methamphetamine some had to do with meth methods i mean no one and so there was essentially some some record that  just marijuana was in some of those i just but in terms of the evidence turning the defendant to that most anything that would have permitted of the lawyer reasonably to argue that he was responsible only for the you or that evidence overwhelmingly overshadowed by the vehicle coming out and the car containing both marijuana and methamphetamine sure wasn't after the jury to decide wouldn't wouldn't a competent lawyer have said you know made the argument to the jury that you know that that part of it is he is the other part isn't and and we correct your honor in that in that for the sake of the question that we find some relief it's warranted we have to decide what it is and i'm looking for the government's position i asked him if it has one as to what kind of released should be available in this type of situation give the defendant an election  essentially go back to the five year statutory maximum sentence now if not necessarily and here's what i'm thinking there's there's a possibility certainly that the jury would have found only the marijuana conspiracy but we don't know that accountable to answer for ninety five point eight grams of methamphetamine and twenty eight point five pounds of marijuana and then it goes on to say it's bottom of the page that the calculations for hayes should not include other loads and should just include these exact measured amounts of methamphetamine and marijuana and then i look at the united states supreme court decision in ca and their comment on just sentencing for the smaller amount when there's been a with that we would be acting contrary to the fairness and integrity in public reputation of judicial procedure standards in a lot of if what we did was what you want to do as send the defendant back down for recess and sing just gave him a five year max in view of the young congress victim evidence and even his own admission that he was