and the only issue your honor that i want to argue this morning is cross examination and whether ken's counsel when cross examining the government witness can go into the or the penalties that were avoided under the terms of the agreement that's the sole issue that i'm going to argue today and what we're doing is asking the court to overrule a discretionary evidentiary decision by the district court repetitive and unduly harassing interrogations but that limitation cannot precluded the tenant from asking not only whether the witness was biased there's also the make a record from which to argue why the witness might have been b and exposure of the witnesses motivation in testifying is a proper and important function of the constitution protected right cross examination here that issue or that motivation wills down to the penalty that was avoided by the witness we have in the ninth circuit the junking case is that i think you are right author where in the district court the primary witnesses for the united states and they were we entered into a plea agreement with united states when they would receive the benefit of a rule thirty five motion in the state in exchange for their was there were a prior to testify truthfully and that if the government didn't think that they were testifying truthfully the government would bring the hammer down on them i mean i'm i'm not sure i understand precisely what it is that you wanted to testify to that the fifty five of the transcript the court prohibits that beginning at line three or the only sentence i don't want you talking about is this feed right here the penalties i wish i had page eight fifty four i mean there are a lot of intervening pages pages from each of them a team to page twenty nine of the transcript and then on page twelve at the top of the page and begins the you say all right if you object and i think i'm seeing as you're saying all right well i'm sure that i did your honor but i don't see it here no running for me but i don't see the objection here in front of me not on not we unfortunately we don't have those speeches but i'm certain that i did because i didn't want to go into that i argue personally the children case i knew would usually work and i'm certain that idea why don't we look why don't we  seven and that's the only notice that he signed mr cicare scarcity of us here illegally and he was probably as concerned about gotten a few days come in and play it straight out and how do we know that well and the record may not be as clear as i would like it to be on that because we haven't included i think anything from to come down from the sentence to three well the defendant at least potentially gets the best just the first benefit is that he pleads and the creek contains within it an agreement to test for it and that brings down the s from some indeterminate that actually very high stands to this point or ninety three months which is still pretty high then he gets a further benefit with possibility of rule thirty five motion and the judge apparently to get the cooperation because the benefit from pleading is not of benefit comes from the government really i mean we haven't offered him any what question have you ever offered him not only to the guideline range but you've offered him the possibility of the thirty five so that you could have argued well listen it wasn't that great event of which you are now arguing to ask well i don't think i don't need to be arguing that it's not that great a benefit i want me to the argument is it's not a benefit to the government that comes from the so that really the unwillingness of the district court to permit certain questioning by counsel did not relate to any particular number page three ninety seven of the excerpt the court on this record clarifies a little bit saying that the court doesn't want the jury to be confused a i would refer the court then with respect to the issue of  standards are met the admissions are missed i believe that's what's happened in this case i don't think there's a real dispute that miranda warnings were read twice in fact just fine and there's no dispute that he did not  brief the benefits that were gained and maybe not so much in this case but in the broader spectrum are government witnesses yeah often times boil down to yes but i think that the contract is and we're not talking about particular provisions of the contract between a witness and the government talking about the entire contract which may have included the withdrawal of the not