the only thing that the government offered at the time were their proper that the government doesn't grant safety valve release because there's also an issue with credibility of the senate and that is why i raise that issue in my brief that i believe what was said during the sentencing by just boss cases appears that she was shifting the burden to the government in determining whether or not my client was truthful or not there was no finding present tense before those were the issues that were the shoes with his truthfulness if we're going to early for those are those not subject to the district court credibility finding  determine credibility in regards to those yes and the judge and the honorable boss gets did not say that she did not find mr solace of all those as not being credible she only then you must be arguing that if there is a dispute did you win because because history will tell us all of us present it as a like the government in this case which they're required to do once there's evidence presented by show you were entitled to the safety valve that at that point in time counsel for the defendant and the trial court to make the decision based upon that evidence yes and the goes to the government's argument  if you could infer that that probably is what she did but she didn't say that of just remanding and say did you determine that this was not credible which  recantation credible that is one way if judged by skids noted that the direct testimony of mr gonzales of all of us did not establish the elements of the offense because he said he had no idea that guy autocoder was going to be in in the record of this hearing judge baugh scales was very reasonably concerned that there were defendants in a mexican drug cartel affiliated drug deal on the stand in the open court in an on steel hearing us i was communicating him for the week leading up to the trip when he thought that miss levy a volunteer his car had been made or had been compromised because by the police i didn't know what to do i was nervous so i got in touch with the dollars above he is the one who was across the street at the gas station directed one of the task force officers to pull that car over that twenty three guys got caught so you've got a code then write this letter without informing his lawyer have time that he's going to do that on direct examination says consistent with the letter i had no prior communication with gonzales of all those before i got to albuquerque part of the no he had no idea who the drugs were he wasn't the one to whom i was going to deliver the drugs so i ask him so who were you going to deliver the drugs to i don't know did you send this letter that says gonzales of all those didn't have any prior involvement with the planning yet how did you get the police usually paul gonzales of all those drives to arizona to pick up the drugs himself that he then drives back to albuquerque and this was the first time this drug deal that this case is about was the first time that you were delivering the drugs but paraphrasing the district court said but he answered my questions and he said that he wasn't delivering to paul begala devolved and i said yes your honor but that's the opposite of what he told me when he answered my question by saying the first time he was to deliver i didn't get to the bench that cross examination but that's ok the district court had that before it when it necessarily mean a credibility finding to be able to say later on in the hearing after hearing the testimony from a do that called result of all of this was to take delivery of these drugs and that was his involvement his knowing and voluntary involvement in this conspiracy and that's why he's guilty rather than not guilty but if you look at  hypothetically that paul in dallas follows just answered the phone when he was unexpectedly called and he was unexpectedly asked to give someone a ride and he because he is a helpful person gave them a ride he would not be guilty whether the finding by the district court that the defendant had not met his burden to prove seeking about eligibility by demonstrating true and complete everything is supported by the record the answer is that it is very substantially and voluntarily voluntary involvement in the drug conspiracy so i think you're saying is that we could affirm without addressing whether it was appropriate or not or n is definitely no rule requiring the dreaded boss as to make explicit credibility findings as each witness could we just look at what the evidence was about what this defendant even get to the weekend vacation at all no sir the court could address any of these things and i tried to be thorough in briefing them just in case the court had further inquiries but if the question is what the simplest way to affirm it is to note that the statement made under oath at the sentencing hearing in both of us is a direct examination alone even if you did count any value that i brought with my cross examination do not meet the standard to establish the elements of the crime to which you put it and i have more but unless of course you have any question i will leave it there conspiracy but what my client did not agree to was that he had knowledge of the conspiracy that originated from arizona to new mexico he can still be found guilty and  established in new mexico when he gets a call to get help about this issue with the car and the drugs he's equally guilty just as how the indictment is right all the information that my client and again seemed to the autobots get says that it was unfair for her in terms of preparing for defense in terms of preparing their client