whether he committed another felony offense to justify a four level enhancement to his sentence in response the district court made no factual findings on the disputed elements and the government offered an insufficient amount of proof on that element to show that had it had been proven by a preponderance of the evidence in this case the district court found that mr gates and had committed the felony offense of possession of a stolen vehicle under the nevada revised statutes section two hundred five point two seven three at the sentencing hearing mr beetson raced a formal objection on the grounds that he didn't know or have reason to know that the car he was doing was stalling in response inquired of the government as to whether in fact the car had been stolen and as to how the card and stolen in response the government produced two documents two police reports the first police report stated that the car had been report stolen two days before mr decent had been pulled over in the car the second police report mentioned the fact that the license plates that were on the car had also been reported stolen it was based solely upon this information that the court concluded that mr gates and committed a violation of the statute however there were there were good reasons in this case why the court needed to make specific factual findings on the intent element of the statute specifically mr de chine was found in possession of the car keys and there was no evidence in this case the car had been broken into on the contrary the police reports that the government has attached as their supplemental excerpts of record state first of all that there was no evidence that the card  no means whether or not the keys were left in the vehicle or whether or not the case has been taken from the victim there's absolutely no explanation for how the keys for how the car were taken in this case it was based solely upon the that's the in which the car needs to be stolen presumably by someone else and somehow gotten into into mr possession without him having any idea that the car could be stolen actually just a minor clarification the car been reported stolen two days earlier however the police report mentions a period of time before it was reported stolen where it could actually have been stolen the not for as well i believe the police report says that november ninth november ninth at ten thirty pm so it's actually a three day period where it could have actually been the court should have been obligated to make specific factual findings as to that element of mr gates in making the statements that are reported in the police reports that would reflect one way or the other on the knowledge or in think you should the government argues on appeal the only thing that they can point to is in the pre sentence report i believe it's that page for they talk about mr deeds you made a statement to the police that he had received possession of the car from an individual named eighteen who had loaned it to him and that he had only known this individual for a couple days and he didn't know her last name besides that information or statement in the pre sentence report there's been absolutely no proof as to how the vehicle was stolen or it's the how mr gates and came into possession of the disputed at the sentencing hearing furthermore the government produced insufficient proof at that hearing below to show that the offense had been committed by a preponderance of the evidence besides the fact that the car was stolen the government argues that car doesn't mean that mr gates and account of how you perceive the session of the car was inaccurate the government again never put forward any proof to show how the car was stolen or how he came into possession of the car they just put forward the police reports to show that it had in fact been reported stolen you know all of that although the the it's not a it's not a huge leap to say that if a car can still in two to three days before you come into possession of it and if you've offered to the police an explanation which on its face sounds doesn't sound very very persuasive but is that someone i don't know his name last name i don't know gave me this car that you wouldn't have written that you couldn't take the next step of saying you know mr dixon you may or may not have stolen nest but you certainly have reason to believe that this car was was not you it was was not not me deems i don't know i first of all the fact that the car wasn't meetings doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't receive the car from an individual name meeting even if she wasn't the owner i would submit that based on those facts i don't believe those specs rise to the level where we could infer that he had reason to know that the car was stolen by a preponderance of the evidence the only the only remaining argument that the government puts before the could have been nervous and ran through the red light because he was in the plan presence of a police car or he could have ran the red light and then nervous because he was in the he was in the presence of police and he had a he had two guns in the car he was an expert on it i thought the i thought they under the passenger seat of the car and then simply missed that missed the light and that's ran the like exactly and which would which would go to the issue of whether or not there was a connection between the possession of a weapon and the possession of the stolen vehicle but it doesn't answer the dean yet he did not recall meetings last name addition aiding was neither the registered owner of the car or the license plates finally did it when it demonstrated a consciousness of guilt he admitted when the police arrived on the is that the defendant there was not arrested inside of the car he was outside of the car selling marijuana yet nearby was the vehicle and a gun was wedged between the driver seat and the center console there was evidence presented that the defend readily accessible was in the front passenger floorboard providing a means of protection and intimidation to maintain the stolen car  that there's a marriage between when intermingling between drugs and guns which also supported an inference that he had committed this additional felony so as to admit that that was included if you will as part of the court's rationale in i'd like to briefly address the government's arguments about the ranch and the pull on coke aces both of those cases a workplace is where the underlying felony had been conceded and the only question was whether or not there was a connection between the weapons offense and the underlying felony so i'd like to point out that factual distinction in this case we specifically have a challenge to whether or not there was sufficient element or evidence to support it can support the inference that he committed the underlying felony i'd also like to just briefly address the government's alternative argument about apartments based on the drug the the objects that were in the trunk specifically even the even the cases that the government sites w section for five three point five five four and the government never made any showing of what objects that consider to be drug paraphernalia more importantly to violate the statute there are two ways you could do so you could have manufacture with the intent to deliver or sell drug paraphernalia or you could have possession with the intent to deliver or sell drug paraphernalia first of all there's no question in this case there's no evidence of manufacture nothing have been manufactured so all we're looking at here is whether or not there was a possession as to the lack of the intent element for the for the vehicle for the stolen vehicle offense but we didn't there was no follow up objection race afterwards as to the inadequacy of the courts you know it's  that certainly could based on the insufficiency of the court's findings in this case there were no findings as to the material element elements that were in dispute in this case so thank you for your e mail think both sides for their argument t