understanding for this is precisely the argument that was made in her chair earlier this year somerville you are correct that the cancer based argument is precisely the one addressed and  i believe that this argument that i'm making currently and what doesn't presuppose this is somehow because here all we have all the government introduced to support the fact that paragraph thirty one there was a serious drug compulsion was operation standing over this court has never relied on information standing alone to impose a fifteen year mandatory minimum sentence under the criminal act in abbott for example the court was faced with an information actually convicted of it's not enough and tucker says this explicitly it's not enough to be charged with a predicate violent felony and to show you were convicted of not by a felony it's not enough for us to sit here and say he probably was convicted of  let's talk about identifying the universe of acceptable documents and you have to have this sort of high degree of confidence that these are reliable thought i've used to say has anybody ever said that the burden of proof on the government at a sentencing stage because that's what we're talking about we're talking about the proof that something the burden of proof on something certainly not preponderance tucker says it's not enough to share that he was charged with a predicate offense you do you disagree that the record shows that notation and if he associated with count two not with count one three or seven or anything else and if he is associated with help to in that record right on that document that's what's missing from paragraph thirty five and that's why we don't have conclusive proof that there was an actual conviction on  discussion of the visibility with the gregory brown opinion that talked about in a very similar way in the context of terroristic threats gregory brown talks about a weapon a weapon example and exactly the same way we talk about that a controlled substance example here the list of controlled substances is not it's not a destructive the list it's a non exhaustive not understand most of examples that could fit the and establish that to preserve an argument a party needs to inform the court of the legal basis for that are you met and the factual basis for that argument and that's it's the scope of preservation we're talking about ok did not happen in this case all right let's assume for the sake of discussion that we got back got past preservation and we're talking about now and further for the moment let's assume that we decided we were going to follow the reasoning in summerville we would still have to address what we what your word opponent has put in front of us which is that the documents to prove a conviction here or  are different than things that we've been presented with before there's no clear record of conviction so i'd like you to take head on the assertion that the standard of proof here that you guys fear the entire abbott issue that we think is not present with regard to that specific question we believe it isn't hundreds of the evidence we believe that the way you described is quite accurate that it's a total body of information i don't know of any case that requires a district court to he want to know where i get that that's the way in which from the u s supreme court that she quoted certainly which talks about certainty what's what's wrong with that application of that language well i think it probably takes it out of  the state courts themselves said hey don't rely on these conviction sheets or they're not the kind of documents that you ought to be looking at these twenty one piece or they're not good enough when you look at the totality this is exactly what happened and and that totality is what how do you if i understand the defense argument is you have never before of this document then you go there and you've got to figure out what n f t means and then you have put it all together and shake it up and there you got a conviction fifteen years and that's not into nothing anybody's ever done before is she right that there's nothing anybody's done how do we how do we know that there was when you say in a formal sense that promises you know how do we know that what because you can't get much more formal than a conviction right goes on your record supposedly something in the war that would allow us to say well that's the way it's treated in the war well my response to that would be is we've never required a court a district court to sit down and dissect each document and attribute to each but the documents in the question as to the documents show that there were three separate convictions in three separate sentences yes that's exactly what the district court found in this case and that we don't see anything in the record to show that that's a clearly erroneous finding anything with regard to that the preservation issue right but we get the right yeah well you know we our position that you know you don't get two bites of the government or the burden of production and proof at sentencing they were aware of the expressly articulated objection to relying