yes your honor ok now let's go back to the district court opinion your briefs argue that the shepherd documents relied on were inadequate i understand the adequacy argument to turn on your argument that the federal district district court misread the puerto rico state case could plead to a lesser included defense and as i understand your argument well because because he was sentenced to three years and that other words he may have been charged with a greater of fence but after everyone sat down and went through the evidence the commonwealth could have made a determination that the evidence in support of greater charge and circumstances thirty years and if there's negated circumstances ten years but i want to go back to jack's thomson's i suppose the prosecution looking at this again decides that they're not going to keep pushing for a four one twenty years sentence they're going to reach a plea bargain and he's going to get penalty is you have to go back to your original charging you for one that's the background off and we saw that in the family of us and we see that in the two court of appeals decision from two thousand seventeen but what does what does it what does it mean you have to go back to so that means that if you have as we do here a judgment that says for a one reclassified before sex you need to find a penalty for six has no penalties in of itself is completely a derivative statute so when the court is confronted as it was we've got of something else yet but for purposes maybe this is i didn't grasp this point maybe for purposes of federal law who cares if that's the charging practice in other words if just the way it works it is we're going to treat it as a for want of a fence but we can see the evidence only showed possession not possession with intent to distribute and therefore we're going to reclassify and we're going to give you the forced sex penalty that all makes sense under puerto rico law you plug it into a for want to fence that's fine but the reason puerto rico treat it as a for want to fence is not because in fact it was evidence of possession with intent to distribute in the way the federal law is talking about it it just has that they're charging practice for all we know you plead guilty to an offense that in practice just involves simple possession if that's all that happened then for purposes of federal law it would trigger the guidelines and if the government has any information about has it been scheduled for argument or any such thing i thought it was the government solve the geisha and to notify our court in the briefing to be obligated to come up with that green and as a shepherd document seller had any lack of clarity as a matter of fact all law gets resolved i believe he's that it's just different doesn't cut one way or the other what he's saying is that as a matter of puerto rico law it is not established on the sheppard documents that round yeah sure if you put aside for sex for a second just understand puerto rico law if he had been charged with the same charge into we have here which i take it defendant as considers the only charging document involved in charge in if you can't plead to anything other but back to for one if there's no other part of for one you could be right no need to because the only thing he was charged with was possession with intent to distribute that's what i'm not following what other charge could there be other than the four one charge i agree with brother counsel to the extent that if we decision and we can affirm based on that but the problem is you neither side it back case to us the last time when we reached the decision we did and i believe you didn't make the argument before the district court here is that correct the latter point ok so  sometimes we do exclude excuse the government from waiver by it's not at all clear to me why we would do it and this case where you apparently did not really argue this point to the district court either at sentencing or are in the p s r so why wouldn't we just conclude that the second argument isn't really of that district court cap but you did not say to the district court look we have and now their line of argument based on puerto rico law i think different set of perjury cases than our