committed an error that was so serious that he was no longer functioning as a counsel guaranteed by the sixth amendment when you think so serious is that sort of a backhanded concession that it was an error you know your honor the government believes that no error was committed here but i'm simply reiterating the high standard that must be met under strictly nor was there any prejudice from any sort of the record is clear that mr maher us on the day of his arrest possessed in his home to firearms adjacent to methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia the record is also to the site of the drug transaction together they were engaging in the drug trade travel together do we know where they traveled from we don't know the records don't know but they were together they were to engage in the drugs transaction together the only reason they were not together in the car is based on for two or the circumstances that happened at the moment and so arguably they were together and getting in the truck transaction together and a reasonable argument could be made that mr possessed in connection with this affair and it's not established from the government's perspective but remember the burden is on the defendant here to establish by a preponderance of the evidence for the safety valve that these guns of strickland and by that i mean that if the government had been able to present its book or evidence then the defendant would have been required at re sentencing to prove by preponderance of the evidence did you make them kind of well like a you know like an officer who for and in his home in his locked bedroom discovered two firearms one underneath his mattress and one on his desk adjacent to additional quantities of methamphetamine digital drug scales a quantity of marijuana and drug oh sheet for customers that was the offer of proof that was made at re sentencing and accepted by the court however the court held  you're right and there is a good possibility the outcome would come out the same and that is true many who have somebody who are known that is that is a possibility as well because not all the facts not all the evidence it's not just the air and you have to show prejudice that is true however in that based upon the evidence that was presented in the twenty two fifty five motion the if there was evidence that would support the law i guess do you agree that the court was wrong on its anal book or whether they're think government could present evidence i mean that seems to me to be clear the court back the law wrong on that and that in a market that nice there did appear that the court was basing its decision on i can say conviction for distribution which the court did make that distinction and he said this is a this is a conviction for just tradition why is a proffer related to what's going on in the house even relevant to this particular conviction your honor the government agrees with the court's suggestion that assuming the district court correctly granted the section twenty two five petition that even in that case remember we sentencing that's required because of the book or the miss reliance on on  two fifty five motion the evidence that the drugs i'm sorry that the guns were possessed in the home adjacent to drugs was already before the court because it was in the pre sentence report which was admitted to and accepted by the defendant and defendant's counsel and so that evidence the government submit establishes that these guns were or at least the defendant would not be able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that these guns were not connected with the offense and therefore prejudiced promise stricklin would