our fifth case for argument is come on trial against england government at the time the district court's decision the district court did not have the benefit of this court's decision in krieger versus united states which was handed down late last year mr macho who is serving a life sentence is now represented by coun and should have the opportunity to more fully develop his claims in the district court that he has essentially raised two claims one is that burrage impacts a sentence by way of twelve a one a he was convicted of kidnapping there is a dispute over whether or not he received a mandatory life sentence under the statute but even if it's determined that he did not receive a mandatory life sentence under twenty one a it seems pretty clear that he did receive a life sentence as a result of the murder crossreference time when he was sentenced in one nine hundred ninety seven guidelines and i must say i don't understand  argument as the supreme court ever held that there is any problem with judicial decisions on a preponderance of the evidence for the purpose of calculating a guideline sentence you know you are i don't i don't actually bet that seems to be the underlying argument here which and since it is so far as i can tell flop of an argument what is there left i think actually your honor that increase or this court talked about causation issue and said that it didn't actually go to burdens of proof such as a preponderance or reasonable doubt it actually burrage went to what must be proved so we're not asking the court to actually hold anything with respect to the preponderance  saying that the causation requirement should also apply in the context of at least the cross reference provision which has the similar death results language that the supreme court decided in courage  d based on the fact that mr camacho's pleadings which were filed pro se were rather rambling at times incoherent we think that he has presented at least a colorable claim that he should be allowed to more fully develop in the district court reasonably be the more you know you're on an individual who is scheduled to testify for the government in a federal drug case they took him across the border at gun point to mexico where he was found murdered the cause of death was his fixie ation the trial court in that case found that the victim was murdered in the perpetration of a kidnapping and applied the cross reference for murder that's found in the sentencing guideline to a four point one guideline for kidnapping mr camacho appealed that indirect appeal to the fifth circuit arguing that he was not charged with and with murder and murder was not proven at trial and therefore his sentence should be reversed that was rejected by the the fifth circuit in which they specifically did note that he was sentenced under the sentencing guidelines to a four point one he then tried to make a similar argument on his twenty two fifty five  case and again that was rejected and now he tries to seek relief basically on the same argument under section twenty two forty one and it's court is aware relief under twenty two forty one is limited to those very rare circumstances where twenty two fifty five is inadequate or ineffective twenty two forty one is not a mechanism for relating claims that he believes that the prisoner believes were incorrectly decided on direct appeal or in twenty to fifty five it's interesting for the opportunity to develop the facts further and i don't believe the court needs to do that in this case because the case on which he relies to meet the devonport criteria barrage simply does not apply first of all  camacho argues here that section twelve will want to aid the mandatory life provision and there's a dispute about whether or not that applies in this case there is no dispute he himself in his brief in the fifth circuit argued that he was improperly sentenced under the mandatory under the sentencing guideline for to a four point one the cross reference for murder the fifth circuit noted that and in his twenty two fifty five case when the sentencing judge in this court denied the certificate of appeal ability that judge specifically stated that he was sentenced not under the mandatory life provision of twelve a one day but under the cross reference for murder found into a four point one neither to a four point one nor the statute that  references which is the murder statute has the results from language that barrage would apply to as this court is aware urashima six sammon ng that results from language in the context of section eight forty one which has a provision that says if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance meaning the substance that was distributed by the defendant in that case that case was a case in which in the words of this district court in this case the cause of was the cause of death for the actual cause of death in that case as opposed to some other comments simply has no bearing in this case because petitioner was not sentenced under similar provision if you look at section two a four point one it says if the victim was killed under circumstances that would constitute murder under eighteen u s c section eleven eleven then you apply the first degree murder sentencing guideline again neither to a four point one section eleven eleven contain the words results from instead what it does is incorporate basically the elements of felony murder so to apply the felony murder guideline in this case the court has to find that the victim was killed in  with premeditation or in the perpetration of a kidnapping and that is exactly what the trial court found in this case we unfortunately do not have the sentencing transcript we do however have portions of it that were attached to the  petitioners motion in this case and also a supplemental brief and in that and from that we know again that mr camacho and others abducted the victim at gunpoint took him across the border to mexico and delivered him actually to the son of one of the defendants in the federal case and he was murdered there and the cause of death was unlike raj the actual cause of death is not an issue so again there is no result from language and barrage simply does not apply essentially what the petitioner is arguing in this case is that somehow this court should apply but for causation to felony murder felony murder is a completely different landscape  what was at issue in barrage and that that that section of that language and brush simply does not apply here because barrage does not apply mr camacho cannot meet the other  two criteria for davenport he cannot show that there is a retroactive decision that was not available to him at the time that he was proceeding through his twenty two fifty five and he absolutely cannot show that there was a fundamental defect in his son actually focused in on the word results as opposed from results from when it when it took an ordinary meaning approach looked at the word results and looked at the dictionary definition of it from that the government is asking the court to basically say that in order to create in order to apply version and the but for causation requirement the statute needs to say results from and we believe your honor that berge only requires it says result because of the ordinary meaning of that and  can see that the issue with respect to twelve one a and whether or not he received a miniature life sentence we know in our reply brief that there is nothing in the sentencing transcript i have read your honor that since you transcript in its entirety and there is nothing  you very much the case was taken under advi