fairly straightforward issues whether mr hill's prior connecticut conviction sixteen years ago when he was seventeen he's now thirty three but whether that that long ago conviction for violent connecticut guideline for b one point two if it qualifies as a controlled substance offense then as a truck were found mr hill's base offense level under the firearm guideline goes up six levels from fourteen to twenty and this six level increases significant because it produces a sentencing range nearly twice what would otherwise apply his range would be seventy to eighty seven months instead of thirty six to forty seven months the court as i said did find that the the conviction qualified and it turned on the evidence the judicial record evidence that was presented by the government to prove up that predicate conviction and a trip to the state transcript from the local the new haven court  some could leave room for uncertainty as to what specific conduct mr hill was emitting to what was he confirming when when he was questioned by the court this is not a can federal court where there's a very lengthy plea and the guilty comes at the end so that it's pretty clear that everything that comes before that point in time is adequately explained in this particular court  in new haven where i practice they were resolving as a busy court they were resolving a number of files on that particular day and as the transcript makes clear the format was to basically  through each file each charge that he was pleading guilty to and ask him to plead guilty first without hearing any factual summary or proffer from the prosecutor there after the prosecutor engaged in a fairly lengthy factual summary of the facts in it in three different cases only one of which was a drug case and as he was asked do you how do you plea to the charge of possession of a an offense like that doesn't mean that you've admitted the element that qualifies it as a predicate that's the purpose of would agree with what you just said if it was do you play how do you plead to there's no indication of the of the type of drug in meeting that came but i thought i thought your point was that savage held that mere offer could not be the basis of a predicate because it wasn't covered by the generic federal statute and therefore and that that in that sense twenty one a dash to ship seven seven was too bruised was overbroad is that is that that's true what there's no indication here that he pled guilty to an offer at all and the statute spells out the various manifestations of this i've already no word either elements or means at this point in the in the disjunctive and here it was possession with intent to sell it seems to me that under those circumstances he's not just pleading guilty to a statute he's pleading statute is that the fact that the connecticut statute criminalizes conduct that the federal law does not the mere offer language which is not in the federal statute means that then you have to look at the transcript to determine what conduct he pled guilty to i heard judge first indicate that simply by answering the charge when put the plea that that would be if not some evidence pretty good evidence i understand that point our argument simply that the law and the shepherd indicates that you have to have complete certainty if that gives the court certainty are you not permitted to look at the to consider in terms of the colloquy the facts that were elucidated about this defendant that he had thirteen heart rock pieces of crack in his mouth the air at the time that he was picked up only if he confirms those facts in a colloquy with the court which that was primarily i think the spot in a district court would we be here from my perspective if that question had been asked after the summary of the facts related to the drug file i would agree that i think that my argument would would would not have the same force is to make sure that the record was completely and thoroughly reviewed in this particular instance i think that one of the most important things the judge did was to point out that the focus of the state court proceeding that's at issue here really was this drug case counsel makes references brief makes reference to the fact they had been five files that mr hill had that day but the focus of everything that occurred before the state court judge really was the drug  prosecution and the defense well prosecution cuellar thought that the principal charge which would have required a mandatory eight years in prison man was excessive and so there was a resolution of the case that was the drug clearly concentrated on that judge shiney carefully reviewed the transcript it's clear from the record in the judge's thorough statements of the time of sentencing that he reviewed very carefully the pleat transcript as your honor points out the facts that were stated on the record by the prosecutor those that were to were proffered clearly eliminated the possibility that the underlying offense related to any kind of an offer this is actual possession of the thirteen bags of crack that the individual had in his mouth the time of arrest so for purposes of savage and then sheppard the record to look to that is the judicial transcript of the plea and sentencing proceedings that the record that did exist is somehow confusing and importantly here that's the defendant and his defense counsel neither the defendant expressed any kind of confusion when he answered yes to the question are those the facts defense counsel express no confusion there's no equivocation on the part of mr hill or mr hill's counsel as to the underlying facts in the case the government believes that the judge shiney was absolutely right in reaching the conclusion that he