illegal reentry after deportation he was subjected to a sixteen eleven handsome after the district court determined that he had been convicted of a previous conviction of a crime of violence and attempted residential burglary convictions under washington state in this matter the district court determined that categorically this crime was not a crime of violence under this court's decision and when the government agrees that the district court made the proper conclusion in finding that this  and used in those charges there is a there is a distinction and a difference in this case because of the fact that as an alford plea and that brings me to the case of united states murder versus smith which the government submitted innocent but i have gone over the facts and i believe in the government's prove and i believe the government can prove me guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury and i want the benefit of a plea i suppose to put in the court in the briefings the lynch pin was set up to be whether or not this was a residence but i think the intent actually is just as important if you look at smith what happened in that case was it was a no contest plea and the court looked to the abstract of the judgment the statute of conviction and the change of plea colloquy the change of pleased transcript in that case the court determined that intense had been proven looking into the statute the elements of the offense in this case and then  question then was whether or not get entered into a residence defined under the federal definition of burglary in this case the we have the amended information what's that states that a person has to enter a residence or unlawfully or remain with intent to commit a crime in this matter then at the change of three colloquy mr cruz ronald specifically states i deny that i had intent to commit a crime and when we look at the mess and as well as fernandez hernandez what the court is relying upon is the stipulation by the attorney that we can rely upon these facts and i say look maybe i'm seeing a little bit more simply what we really look to is was there a conviction from smith and what what can be considered in this case and first of all our position is that the attorney is offhand comment that it was more of a medication comment that that he was in the house and then the judge's comments that well supposedly this is an apartment and says that the government states that mr cruz ronald should have objected at that point well our position is that first of all you did not have to make such an objection with an alford plea and secondly that those are not factual admissions nor were they stipulations which was relied upon and hernandez and as well smith that the parties had stipulated and agreed to and i'm totally unaware of that about how i think that shepherd is different than my understand my recollection of sheppard was the police that the court went to the police reports and that there was no indication that the police reports were part of a wrecker and so and here in fact the defense attorney acknowledged that he was the first one to mention this police reports would be offered a think i don't think that this court needs to wait for shepherd to come down because because the police reports were part of the record plus the fact of the defense attorney's statement that he went into the house plus the fact that the court mentioned you're pleading guilty at your pleading you're entering an alford plea to answering into a home an apartment and at that point there should have been a wait a minute no i'm this whole proceeding where he talks about going into the house of the victim and that that the defendant was found in a closet during that factual statement there is no mention of a storage unit or anything else that would serrano agreed with the court's characterization of the address we also asked the court to find that the statement by the prosecutor in the argument by the prosecutor cannot be considered to be judicially noticeable fact that can be relied