this will apply going forward to this state and they do this all the time so it's not meaning the congress can't do this can't create these sort of complicated problems it's the courts have said for hundreds of years we assume that we operate statutes going forward not going backwards counsel is it clear that we can't enforce the anti deficiency or the there that we can at that we have the power to enforce this right i mean certainly certainly macintosh seems to seems to assume that we can't yet but i didn't see that we actually sort of squarely confronted that question as to how we do this i mean there are there may be other riders for example of the if if congress ordered you know or said no money shall be spent further on the afghan war i think we get standing but you know do the courts have the power to prevent the president from taking some kind of emergency action if it might affect afghanistan i mean what the enforcement is riders is very very difficult question and if it comes up under the other deficiency act that's usually something the tourney general would have to enforce and then the enforcement might come into court but what right does the court have to say you can't be here today mr caldwell you got to pick up your stuff and walk out of the door and we're not going to listen to  the motion work in this in this case they were going to is there a chevron issue lurking here as to what as to what the what the writer means that they have to defer to the agency as to whether this comes within the right or not i hadn't considered that complication well and there's no there always you have these sort of and that's another reason why you should be able to fully handle this appeal without concern about the writer but your honor i can't say that i've had opportunity to get fully briefed that work or consider all the implications a government question as bringing a charge against raising a charge of fabrication under the hearsay rules at that question never came into evidence it was there were some focus on the appropriations rider for a moment although if i have time i'd love to hit jury nullification but the courts are absolutely correct that the district court here when we brought our twelve point one motion said no i need a hearing in order in order to find th s and of course that's the case because at the trial itself the court repeatedly used language like issue red herring irrelevant to talk about compliance so this wasn't an issue that was litigated now mr lynch attempted to put some sympathetic evidence before the court at sentencing but he was never given an opportunity to demonstrate compliance and at the twelve point one hearing the court clearly found that that he that he could the mention case though the district court simply made a mistake by relying on that in just misinterpreted the law despite the fact that mr lynch had made his position clear he initially through his attorneys had talked about how he operated as a primary caregiver but before the district court made it sentencing ruling long before he submitted a declaration by mr alford and even presented mr alford at a sentencing hearing to explain you know we were a little confused about the california law ourselves actually the reason he was legal is because he was operating as a a collectively in cooperated fully under the n p a there's no sort of waiver there there's no there's no change and i and i really do want to just step back to the big picture first moment cause i think it's pretty extraordinary what the government's asking here the entire point of this appropriations rider was to protect people like mr lynch from prosecution and punishment we know that because the actual authors of the rider representatives far and  written to this court and filed an amicus brief saying mr lynch is one of the precise people that actually we were intending to protect by this he is the poster child for medical marijuana in the kleinman decision the court didn't say there's no way he could have been compliant it was about this extra sales out of state that defendant was in no way complying with the law the way mr lynch was he truly without hyperbole with the poster child for medical marijuana so to say that he's not even entitle to a hearing to have an opportunity to demonstrate his compliance i think really flies in the face of what the cause of the legislating that congress has done here and i would point the court to that were a backer and far amicus brief as well because i do believe it discusses somewhat congress's authority to so this is the type of issue that this court gets deference on and if the court here did that it would be in in good company the facts are conceded a and and and the only issue is what the meaning of the of the statute in and the sentencing guideline if that were the case you know on a visit by designation here but i mean in in most circuits that that issue would then be dunno of well be that he no longer can it be under the statute and and it's into relation with the with the sentencing guideline can it be that there's discretion not to apply the that language in the statute which incorporates language and that's a that's a question you've got to answer by looking at cases not by looking at the record yes yes your honor i can see if the issue is something that we resolve by looking at cases and statutory language  history and all of that instead of looking at what's in the record of this case then our review would be to know would know what we were spectrally disagree your honor i think that is clearer but even assuming it's done over or perhaps abuse of discretion  if you look at the guidelines themselves three b one point one also interacts with one b one point three so that is the relevant conduct guideline and the argument that we've made here is even if the district court got this wrong legally on the basis that that it looked at this court can affirm on any basis supported by the record and if you look at the the relevant conduct properly under the guidelines the participants which it's a very broad view under the guidelines and we've argued you could go quite broad to the state of california but the court doesn't even need to go there just taking the dispensary itself the c c c c we are having involvement of the mayor the city council the city attorney doctors lawyers etc mr lynch was not supervising any of these people in fact many of them were giving him instructions and i would put as you say that's not the rationale of the district that's not that's not which is why if this court disagreed with the rationale and didn't think it could simply affirm on the record it should do what the court did in the washington case and in that case in which the government relies heavily on the district court initially followed logic similar to what what the district court here followed this court didn't reverse and remand with instructions to impose of the mandatory minimum sentence it reversed and remanded with instructions to reconsider whether the role has been applies under with the court's proper guidance and what happened in washington when it went back to the district court is the district court followed precisely the analysis i've laid out here you look at the relevant conduct look at the participants it's a bit broader found that mr washington under that under that view and looking at the evidence  not should not have a role and handsome and again apply the safety valve and the government did not appeal that so adam in a marginal target i mean that looks from the record like the judge would have loved to have done that but didn't feel like he could do it so he went with the even more exotic theory so you may not even if you got that relief in my gut not good for it may not your honor but we do believe that it with a with it at factual question it is typically subject to clear air review and is deferential at the very least the gist of course should have the opportunity to pass on that in the first instance thank you thank you your honors appreciate the extra time good thank you house will give you or give you a minute if you want to respond on that on the one question on whether it should be  more so i can try to explain i just wondered whether there was an answer to your argument with the argument that we have to reverse for because the enhanced not was not a blind i see i misunderstood i thought you meant process that goes here but when you have a guideline with the supreme court has said and done a good case that factual predicates met you must apply the guidelines there's there's really no room for application here and you've had concessions as to the facts you have t