greater evidence of a weapon they found that wasn't sufficient for an armed bank robbery conviction and so i will not address that issue any further unless the court asks me to i think the witnesses and take on the sentence if we are the first on that count on that count it wouldn't of matching showing within the next unknown and frankly i'm not i'm not certain that the text of the note i'm sure that mr rice will probably find that well what we're discussing but i think the significant thing here is that the change when the first robbery i'm not i'm not sure i would have to review the record to see what it is i'm not certain what it is at this point i don't i don't have a recollection but i think that we need to look at not just the pattern of the robberies on may thirteenth where there were three robberies on may thirteenth there were two robberies as well so there was a pattern of well there were three robberies on the day in question there was a total of five robberies some of those were on arm some of those were arm four of the five robberies were caught on video tape and that the tellers observations were consistent with the video e and all of those those instances only this contested case the at the second robbery on may thirteenth was not videotaped apparently they had a system but someone is left of the tape in the v c r so there was no videotape but the first robbery on april twenty seventh the defendant had to have a clear pattern here if you would he would come in and provide a note in a very calm matter and all of the cases the other other people in the bank were even aware there was a robbery until after what had occurred but the first  individual provider to know said it was a robbery that the teller testified that they didn't you know that there was no weapon the videotape showed there was no weapon the second robbery on another day that the person submitted a weapon sort of listed the jackets left the note says there's a gun the teller says there's a weapon the video shows a weapon and then there's a period of time we're not sure of the exact time frame but between the first and third of about an hour and forty minutes so somewhere in the interim there thirteenth which is that the date of the the robbery in question i think so the third robbery was actually the first robbery on may may thirteenth it was the third robbery of the five robbery series but it was the first robbery on the day three robberies were committed and there and there the weapon was was displayed and i think that it's clearly you know possible that someone who had committed a robbery would hider stash that you know weapon or evidence of the crime and then weapon because again we have a total of five robberies i think it's clear that some are armed some are armed and use a different number and each one part is different not in each one apparently and i don't know whether that the second third notes or excuse me the second third house on may thirteenth which would be the fourth and fifth of all the robberies i'm not sure whether that was was different of the same but we do know that between the first robbery on may thirteenth when the gun was present and the second robbery on may thirteenth when no gun was observed that  there was nothing to indicate there was a weapon and would really be speculating because all the surrounding circumstances show that that that the robbery in question was out of out of character with the other robberies if there were if there was a gun there because it twenties the other says give me your your hundred fifty thousand twenties so between that the second and third robbery but it appears it was an identical note used in both of those but the changes between the first and second robbery where the bread so the gun was deleted and i don't know that it's  you all right now the question presented here is whether a public defender is acting under color of state law where he intentionally and willfully that the victim here