notice inconsistency about she said that his birth a short period after and the actual date was a couple years after the district court did notice that i mean you could say that you believe someone but that doesn't mean that they're correct well the district court made i mean do you understand the distinction that i'm making i couldn't believe that you're telling me the truth to the best of your knowledge but that doesn't mean that i believe that you've conclusively proven a point that you're correct on that i understand that but the district court made its decision after she had given it a mistake in the registration and just going to the registration i think that her mother focuses on the birthday not on the date completely really weighing the evidence and that's you know if i had been the district court i might have come to a different conclusion if i were sitting there but sitting in an appellate capacity i see that the district court was confronted with certain conflicts in the evidence certain discrepancies and reached a certain conclusion and there's a saying you know trial courts do what they do because they are there and they see the evidence appellate courts do what they do because we're not there and so people is seeing the witnesses noting you know there's certain time mean as to your client was there you know didn't contest any of this for a long period of time made certain statements to probation that indicating when he started using drugs and there were inconsistency there was evidence about height and all of that and at the end of the day said well i don't think you've carried your burden well the district court based that date because it was the same birthdate as his son her something like that and that is the only evidence that there is that mr ali mohmed gave that date he no one after that could say yes he  say that's the only evidence in the court but we found out why wouldn't that be enough and he really didn't know how so when ok but let's say let's say that it is confused and there are different explanations that are given if you agree that you have the burden of proof to show that he was a juvenile yes and let's just say let's say it's just flat out even if you've got the burden of proof you lose well i would say that it was a flat out even here when you had assuming that it was let's just say  that it was do you lose that well there there is information that we would have to show by preponderance so fifty fifty yes so you have to you've got  template just a little bit right and i would submit that the documentary evidence and the credible testimony of the mother did push it because what came in through the probation officer that bothered the district court was just own statement his confutation of how old and the documentary evidence of the birth certificate that the mother got which later was bolstered by mother who got a copy of the birth and later on the mexican consulate independently provides a copy of the birth certificate from a different registrar it's the same birth certificate but it shows if there was any lingering doubt that there was a sort of fraud by the mother that there wasn't because the mexican consulate provided it of the mother if anybody on but actually i think that that in a sense demonstrate the propriety of this process ultimately in that here's a judge who if anything had a tendency to believe the defendant mother  by their own testimony confused defendant told him i'm now sixty he is that confused about the birth but if you just were confused about his height we don't have testimony saying oh