i'm basically going to address that now i know the court is going to determine whether there was an error and if there was whether it was harmless and i think th salazar testifies then just prior conviction evidence is coming in the way i interpret it now when i went back and saw the actual transcripts and basically that august twenty fourth reiterate that prior conviction in another part of the transcript of the government emphasized the prior conviction later in the trial when questioning defense witness gordon carter borden carter was the auto auction person who testified that somebody i dealer like mr salazar would have had to have a clearance and then the government in cross examining said you mean if that person had a prior conviction and that sort of thing so it wasn't just one time when questioning mr salazar was brought up later  a massive investigation but on the other hand and not harmless because there were certain certain portions of the evidence that were supportive of what mr sala lets the court has any further questions that's pretty much what i wanted to say ok thank you thank you  district court because more hardeen was in possession of during the commission of the on the line of in addition to the arguments that we have presented to our review more  again harvey in respect lisa most of the district court committed an error because it applied the wrong standard of proof in determining whether more harding was eligible for the safety  hardin's excerpts of records which reads very vague unless follows that line six and this is the court speaking ok thank you i don't find that the defense has proved beyond  america case found at the united states of america versus nelson case found that two to two for thirty five forty five two thousand case which is the ninth circuit court of appeals case in which globally i mean i guess anything is possible and anyone can say well if you have a gun then obviously the intent is to use the car but the distinction in this case  so i guess goes back to my original question answer part of that but i gather from your argument you're doing the standard proof you say it's a good one thirty right but now are you also saying that even though the court would have let's assume that it would have articulated the correct standard which we already had previously but then it went on to enhance it even if it had appl them or do anything of that sort and the very last argument that the government makes to the judge to just be omar is that while he didn't cooperate i mean it's been on his the life we hear there's a to cooperate therefore he lost the benefit of the bargain well what happened was he was prejudiced because if you look at the transcripts the very next page of the transcript the court says well he didn't cooperate he doesn't get the benefit of  the government's most for coward departure but it affected his own motion for downward departure because the court didn't consider it so he was prejudiced by the fact that the government argue i can tell you it caused by surprise because there was nothing mentioned in the you want to bring another case later sounds like he may want to bring on the plea agreement itself but that's that's a different ball game we can't we just have to go on the record we have why i think the problem we have is that if the government is going to offer  on the thirty first of august and that's in the docket and i believe september fifth right before trial which is started on september seventh i always refer to this is our nine one one trial we were in the middle trial when nine eleven came around we started trial on the seventh of september august thirty first and he did not there was no objection to that either that if you do you i don't recall your honor if there were conversations i know we never got anything offered to us in writing where we could have gone into it with him  stuff at this point you know after the change of plea he had he subsequently moved to withdraw his plea and took a different position i'm on a whole on the whole case that he wasn't involved he didn't know what he was doing but he didn't understand the matter was his wife's that was really involved in this he just answer the phone that even well and of course the evidence was he was friendly with the kingpin he was a friends with sleep they were always castro the subject the wiretap on mali and he was the one that knew that that is page thirty four of our exhibit and excerpts of record i'm so and he says what is it are you going to come over what are you going to do this because you're just playing around and says no i francis was from sources my car's not driving well i'm you know i'm having problems with my illegal alien he can't possess a weapon what about the argument that the court stated the role of burden well by one by one by ice saying beyond a preponderance i think by any  going on and how they come in take this truck he makes an incriminating statement to the police that yeah he he he you know and he says he thought he was being followed and he when he said your phones are screwed he meant they had a wiretap on him i mean it was clear what was going on here i submit the case against him was wrong if there's any error i don't believe that i submit there is not it's harmless and unless the court has some questions for me i think the court thank you just briefly yes i the cross examination then mr carter emphasizing the prior conviction was in my statement just in addition on the harmless error issue it's on record that the jurors deliberated for seven hours before reaching verdicts now could be five minutes and five minutes they decided th