child now the ultimate question this case is whether that sequence of events acquires the conclusion that it's more likely than not that the sole purpose of the government's charging decision was punish the defendant worked elliot against him for filing  but i didn't think there was any issue that you didn't even know them well the primary attempts came in the motion for reconsideration ok that doesn't but that's not good is it i mean you can't raise new issues new arguments for the motion reconsider well the motion to reconsider it doesn't it doesn't address a motion for reconsideration that's proper adding to that but we would carry so this would be new ground well our position is that the district court of the one that broke new ground by saying there is a presumption hasn't been rebut the government brought charges when lesser charges were possible that decision was presumptively on reason but i think the district court looked back you had the same evidence at beginning thirteen earlier when the original indictment was was issued it did and well then what shape whether the other than the granting of the motions here as presented in the affidavit in support motion for reconsideration understand the motion to suppress that we could have and they have done that we could so again nothing has really changed in that thirteen month period except the actions on the motion to suppress well i think that gets to one thing that that seems to me  each of those reasons rumbled and will be you say it's a rare case but it's in terms of the stake it's a pretty typical just got a motion granted excluding some evidence which meant you had to charge a different char the government what he's got to do though is tied into plea negotiation this is the best route although i do think why should it make a difference whether in my is that a logical line to draw well you mandatory yes and no i mean the guidelines there are the statutory minimum and that's what if you're thing that you went from a situation where before i made the initial charge and there was discretion then you have the guidelines application and even though they got last going to be taking an appeal where if they had taken the appeal and gotten remained they never would have been able to do to increase the right well if that's why it's a little not suggesting there's a categorical rule just seems like it ought to be more unusual than a run of the mill case i'm still have a little trouble seeing exactly how it's mill and the fact was other than that that the two possible charges less than what was charged to begin with and here we've got turned on its head that that we throw these charges out and then ok without this evidence we still have this greater charge here that it really wasn't how do you deal with that last point about whether it's one of the  situation where after a motion to suppress is granted you get charged with a greater crime or lesser sounds pretty unusual and sprayed sprays that way i don't think it is think it's it's common for example government to charge already said that you didn't because she said you felt that you didn't have a duty so you can explain that you could i am sure that you could hear my question did you object we have got to the first point where it became clear that no government was going to require us to