case and the issue there was whether or not you have to plead the added weight of felonies and prove my trial which was the issue was did the fifth amendment require that the court said no but now the court's gone on a different punishment when you stand up randy said that and then ring that and now we have blakeley and and you know maybe it's any dime fool can see the tree is going to fall of eventually but the question is who gets to swing  i was really only asking you you said it has no direct effect but it sounds like your argument well it has no direct effect but of course that it overturns this decision well that was you're saying well no because you can re enter commit an unlimited number of can or get convicted on one number of times in your sentence cannot be enhanced it has to occur before the immigration proceeding that's now you violated by coming back so issue that has to be decided by jerry yes and back to the conviction in the time of the can run because that's what i'm saying this because we're not talking about the mere fact a conviction because then it wouldn't matter what it was a when it happened if that's if that's the exception but the six understand let me let me ask you something about respect to the sentencing hearing here is that as i recall from reading the sentencing transcript you know there was a dispute about whether or not the defendant disputed whether or not the district court judge was required to recall in the sentencing report you know laid out and there was no objection that to the fact that he had suffered this particular conviction well but having suffered it doesn't still mean or they can be enhanced because the judge then still has to make a factual finding that it was in morning gentlemen please this court and i'm paul a greasy i'm from the united states attorney's office in reno and i'm representing the government government's interest in this matter i think we've that councils a major argument here is that no court addressed the sixth amendment argument as it relates to thirteen twenty six b two and that the there's based on changes to the statu conviction the government disagrees the government in looking at the elm and doris taurus case finds that the majority opinion does specifically address proving prior convictions to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt and those who were addressed the sixth amendment argument found that the danger of unfairness and doing that was outweighed the necessity to prove that and found that thirteen only thing that's changed in thirteen twenty six to be two was the term deportation through removal of the sane temporal argument and nature of the prior offenses remained exactly the same so the court terminology distinction that was raised in the counsel's opening brief indicating that the terminology that was was used in this case is significant the fact that the defendant in this case pled guilty to deportation and not removal and thirteen twenty sixty two requires a prior removal in order to get the enhancement to either ten or twenty years based on the nature of the prior conviction and the government would just point out that the circuits prior decisions in this case i think i've ruled on that matter and say that the station between deportation and removal are legally insignificant and it's important to note that the defendant in this case was thirty nine to forty this court is explicitly held in the constitution's due process clause hexed the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt now we've moved past that's straight fifth  not doesn't matter but the fact is that those facts must be found by a jury period and that's where we're at now and i would point out two things to the court in wearing one of the aggravators or to the a