proceedings so we believe the record shows even if we are in plain view that reversal is require even aside from that that even if the court is not willing to disturb that undisputed fact so is still required in this case because mister trailer's objections adequately placed the issue before the district judge those objections included the claim that the traffic ticket was completed at  under rodriguez i allays the th amendment so we believe the record is clear regardless of what standard the court finds applicable for so it is required and additionally i do want to point out although the government  advocates for plain error were guarding this issue really the only possibility it could apply to is that one particular that pertaining to the dash cam video which shows the canine unit not arriving insufficient so well it's not always the case because sometimes that fact is not disputed judge sometimes there is a fact that the parties don't see it is determined a better allows the appellate court to affirm on that basis in this case however we did disappear reasonable suspicion we disputed that and the magistrate court adopted by this of history did not make those additional findings that the government is relying on  specifically that mister trainor active nervously it was difficult to understand that he paced around this record ever made was fine i would argue about facts now you're not saying that the government's precluded from arguing reasonable suspicion as a legal matter on appeal are you based on the facts that are in the record that's correct that's the correct and i would agree they can argue based best to keep based on the facts that are in iraq are right so what do you have to say about the merits of reasonable suspicion based on the facts that were found ok well initially i'd like to point out the facts that the government relies on in its brief which were not those that i just w the government's ability to ride on this basis but the court never found those those facts additionally the lower courts did not find that three hundred dollars is a large amount of cash especially for a person like mister taylor that is employed oddly did not find that two phones were suspicious especially considering the fact that mister cramer exclaimed that one of those phones what was no longer working the government simply cites things from the transcript as though they were between the police officer completed writing the ticket and the canine alert and you're now saying we should excuse and still you're under a plane or analysis and because it was actually maybe five or six minutes or maybe even as many as seven minutes assuming we were to accept your argument why shouldn't we at least give the government the right to go back to the district court and argue reasonable suspicion i mean i'm i'm not sure we should make the reasonable suspicion to terminations but i'd also i'm not so convinced that we shouldn't give the government the aptitude indeed to raise that argument by making it so unit and unit arrived much sooner than it actually did so we simply argued the stock was overread by poor team and that there's no way you can find on the record  to object to the on our and say actually this this threshold matter that was found by the magistrate court it's not accurate it extended at least to fight eighteen or nineteen or twenty whatever it needed it had that opportunity to do so it chose not to do so what happens because the framework established was the most beneficial to us to its decision to its position so we were  operating by the district court framework and now we can see that the facts do not support that the government did go on reasonable suspicion in its response if i was you not only did not not only objections judge but they actually mister trailer had reasonable suspicion he probably had reasonable suspicion to do an investigative stop at the time to pull over mr trailer and certainly during the traffic stop which is a challenge he developed original suspicion to further delay didn't stop in time for the drug dog to get there we're talking about a couple i'm going to extension at most and that extension is more than reasonable given the facts that that gave this officer a reasonable suspicion and i think everything else is it is really just just using the issue here and it's to start with the government in her original opposition argued twice incorporated it's prior arguments so any suggestion that the government was abandoning arguments is simply contrary to the record k b s question can't ask a question about that that short you know adopts they are and are filing in it and i don't and assuming that everybody sort of had the timing off here did the magistrate did conclude that that brown's subsequent effort to call the probation officer works training as to the mission and did prolonged the stop now that everybody seems to be in agreement on the tiny we do you agree with that  that when you have said please adopt the are in on it's tiring to that's that conclusion is still there do you think that that's still a valid conclusion of the magistrate that you have now adopted how do we look at that i don't think so your honor i  and it says you specifically have to object so what's a mess what's the district judge to do at that point you say we agree but look at that prior pleading and it is the district judge of that point then supposed to say well now we're going to compare the prior pleading to the that we don't have a burden as you call it preservation we're not cross appealing and there's no obligation for us to file across appeals in this context so i think there's a distinction there judge but we're between you know the legal finding and factual fi mister casey that taking all the facts in the magistrate judge's order accepting the one that's now agreed to being correct that you think there's reasonable suspicion to justify this case and the court can refer to those well i don't you think if there's somebody testified to something we can refer to it but if we don't have the finest whether or not it's a fact but what makes you say we can rely on what it was  if you look at his actual testimony more than corroboration in fact extends those facts and those details are also important so i do think you can take those two together if he testified to something that is not inconsistent rather further supports what the i do think that that's testimony you could credit because it's just implicitly credit in it what in the court's finding and that's largely what we would be looking at here entirely inappropriate there's no legal basis for it and it was done easily by rich that we had had an opportunity to appropriate appropriately but any allegation is somehow based on some sort of withholding or some sort on the video the fact was elicited in testimony that the particular car driving by is the it was a fact the color of the of the drug officer there's no there is nothing hidden or was hel all right thank you for your argument mister moss used his time is that right yes you having urgent mister moggs probably do will give you one  that calling the probation officer was extraneous to the stop or don't ask the court to adopt that the district court may argue something they are you the exact contrary at this point findings we just disagree and the court can look at the d cam and the transcript and see the magistrate court did not find the findings that the government relies on in there now i'm not i can't speak to what went into their mind but i simply know that a advocated for a framework that was more beneficial to their to their position and that's why that's also a strategic decision and we believe that strategic decision should begin a fact that they should not be able to b