distribute methamphetamine the government is taking the position relying on the strap on that because it does not have to show a connection that in fact in the be no connection i think is the recent case of united states versus florida this is a case i said submitted by way of supplemental florida makes it clear that a connection with the offense is always required it's a question of the burdens of proof in the case of the parks are based on say think that the defendant has the burden of proving an absence  trucks sometimes they or them left at the same time and that's when they were delivered at the same time and that's when the possession was at the same time but as i understand your theory that these guys who are buyer who's looking for both that you're going to have the conversations of both guns and drugs then the whole concern about having guns associated in the context of a drug drug transactions that does he know where to get a gun he goes to somebody knows the codefendant kirby his wife is selling our gun and he gets that so that's your first transaction during our transaction my client take small amount of methamphetamine for personal use and the foreman says well how much would you pay for it seventy five dollars i'll give you one hundred dollars ok drugs i'm never in the nation for eight months during that time the undercover agents are talking with the cow defended about guns and there was no evidence that he was in the business of guns but he could go out and get you can always go where user who's getting it from somebody and maybe he could get more so now he's in the business of drugs first you know he sells a gun and now he's in the business of guns and now he's in the business of drugs and then they start ordering a lot the same time  certain point can be said what's the connection between the two it's an agency that is going to order them at the same time if there's such a big concern this policy concern about guns and drugs don't want to much the same time is the enhancement of the guns and the drugs was purely a creation of the agent that is the second point but i believe the strongest point to runner is they were not connected to each other they were just just that are together at the same time purely because agents are prerogatives of role and for purposes of sale no part of protecting the loot yes you are and there was no evidence that they were loaded i evidence the undisputed evidence of these separately negotiated parallel transactions shows that the weapons were not connected to the drugs they were on separate courses separately negotiated inventory of guns or drugs the agencies say can you get me this while i check my source and then i go out and try to do this so they happened to go out for the specific transaction from make the liver but there's no connector and furthers that's a different standard that's one hundred twenty four c standard and what we have in this case is the supermarket it's the super commodities scene transactions they are related one does not for the other but under the guidelines they don't the policies you don't want the vans to present during drug deals you know it was the guidelines unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense and that's the if that's the offense of conviction which is the drug dealing so what's the can you just said it's not they're not connected that what is done furtherance of the other illegal content the word is it's not connected but in the context of the improbability the unloaded gun in the closet and the display of an antique weapon at the home if we take it into the logical conclusion if you had any crooked police officer who was wearing his uniform which would have a gun and he sold or bought drugs be the argument well he always carries a gun it's not i don't know but there do you know but there's all you always find it's connected by way of saying well you know it's within reach there's the chance of that you can do there's he's wearing the gun to protect against be ripped off in his drug transaction but here you have a situation where you start off by saying no these are totally separate transactions so they're not in further and and the the application saying they have to be connected and they're not connected they're only connected as he says because there are orders for drugs and orders for guns for they're not bringing it to the party in order  any sense of the term as you're saying to protect the dealers or the brokers from being ripped off by their buyers or whatever but i'm not following they argue well they don't work for the purpose of protecting being brought to the party for the purposes of protecting against a rip off then that would be a night when a force standard but there is the case where a drug dealer engaged in a drug transaction and he was liable to just one because the gun was fifteen miles away because the gun was available during the course of the conspiracy it's a different standard what was the connection the connection was that he would he had been dealing drugs the gun was at his home during the course of the conspiracy but the end he was held liable under the up or he just went for that even though the gun wasn't more dangerous and now we're going off into what seems intuitively correct the presence of drugs and guns in the same location is inherently dangerous but that's not what the application node is talking of that's why i think that connected to the offense so what was the connection to the offense mere presence yes you say in the application note use the word connection these that was present there yes and you have any authority for that and the  it's the context of the case any case of thirty that's interpreted that way and the only one would be the one that would have the restruck role in the one involving the transaction with a gun fifty miles away but you also need to view that application known in the context of the balance of that you know in commentary which is we recognize the inherent danger of when the guns are present but here's the problem with that in this particular them yes and that and that's because they were involved with people who were selling guns and dealt you know contrary to some of the representations during oral argument here it wasn't always that the agent is gong contact or someone who are dealing with guns and say hey let's do some dope on november sixth oh the one they bought a three fifty seven magnum and at that time mr i already have some methamphetamine and they bought that in ninety one gram and ninety six percent here from this around after a while they had the contact on july thirty first where the ages were to pay mr kirby fifty hundred dollars for the balance of a prior not firearms transaction and at that time he then engaged him he showed him a methamphetamine and said i can sell you ice for seven thousand dollars a pound there's further discussions on august first for one one half ounce for five hundred dollars in august eighth two thousand  thank you for paying me for your other gun transaction hey let's discuss drugs it's the supermarket free market example of that they can then bring up those transactions as well where these guns loaded some were it was a transfer of a gun with ammunition but that is false so the context of the commentary know that  in that residence the fact that the guy may also use it for hunting is still proximate there's the fact that it's unloaded and it's not in connection with the particular drug sale if there it's there for drugs in connection with the butter there ends of than you're safe well these weren't that but if you take it in the context of the circumstances in this case where we're not talking  contested that received a sentence of one hundred thirty months appealed it and it was reversed the mandate to the judge to judge jones was examine this case and see if you would get something lower or something else that was because and only just come out of my memory is correct i don't remember the case yeah yeah it's not a year and a half ago yes we are we are leavened days short of the halloween oh i'm sorry you have something yes you're right one of the first drugs and so actually again was my client was going to use some personal use methamphetamine the informant said i'll give you twenty five dollars will get paid if there was any nation but that was sold separately there was no evidence that any of the weapons were loaded they were already adding this was already was delivered at the same time as a weapon there was no connection and there has to be a connection ok thank you  oh i'm sorry before we go off the record we have a second page for you you don't have this that i need to do this for the record the cases of united states versus