situation here where there's an analysis and the analysis included several factors of the court did address there were several other factors that the court simply did not address and ignored and there are very significant legal issues in terms of what was there were several things that were that occurred here at some of these things were something that they just recorded knowledge that he was he was held in the dining room table he largely couldn't move about the could not move about the apartment after the on his home after the interview one is somewhat in dispute in this case one of the but two questions he asks are is my kind a target of this investigation the nd question he asked is is my client definitely going to be arrested the nd question is the one your question to answer the royer supposedly says if he doesn't cooperate then he' he asked is he definitely going to be arrested and the agents indicated he would that depends on whether he cooperates and how he answers our question ok and that according to the testimony of the lawyer calling to step from only the attorney and mr ms on the record shows that the officers don't require a question being done to call the question so the i believe the district court indicated that they said that it did but they also testified that they didn't respond in the way that the worst said they responded correct i don't recall that i what i recall is that they they indicated that they didn't recall that question that question was asked of them and i felt one following day later on asked whether they said he would be arrested if you didn't cooperate and they said no they didn't say that but usually they could they they said that they didn't say that and then the question was put to them again and we say it was said the question was asked are the is he definitely are you saying this didn't happen or you don't recall said and that the answer was given but they found that that was a murky as what she said as she said that they were you asking us to say it was clear not to find that it actually was what i'm asking is that that we should be far and i'm asking for clear air but if that if the court believes that the record isn't clear on that that she never never discussed attorneys ajax testimony and they no way to find whether there was no credibility determination maybe there is a clear error here that anything and then terms of of it being something that was definitely happened they said just simply said they didn't recall she was just a critic aiding statement from the agents which she doesn't know now analyze doesn't even look at that doesn't mention that versus another part of this analysis that was never considered by the court which is really got a list of the could the attorney that nd question the st question is in major the st question is is he a target  there's no question it was communicated this court has has looked at that issue that the district courts have looked at that issue and said if it's not communicated fine but this is a situation where the fact that he was a target was communicated and you take that that's is miranda if he's in custody is supposed to be is supposed to be given regardless of whether attorney that's not the criteria but the fact is that we have a situation here where i submit that becomes more custodial because even though the attorney is present now he's been told at the very least his client is a target of the investigation now we can't leave now we can't do anything because now been told he's a target and so that that in of itself combined with the other factors puts it in a situation where a reasonable person is not going to feel they're free to leave under those circumstances and then that becomes part of the issue when you consider that you consider the fact that there was testimony from agent ryan that he was not allowed to go up and get a glass of water because they were afraid of knives although impala never testified to that at all we have that have a good watch him go to the bathroom all those factors together it created a custodial interrogation room separating him from his wife the the other agents in the house that would have been known to him right i'm s known to him that may not have but certainly the fact that his face cell phone was taken the last communication from the outside world was known to him and all those factors together and then you combine that you combine that with the fact that there is now been to factors and the district court here said it's a close call but never address the question of the target and how that factors into the analysis and so that's the issue we have we have all these factors suggesting potential  we counter balance we don't we're ok well well what are the other factors that would apply well obviously if he's been told of being arrested is a pretty major factor but the fact is that he's been told he's a target you combine that with all those factors and that's what creates the custody that's a that it was done when it turned they did it was not on the phone but he did do that and gave that to the agents and me essentially and that that cut off his contact with his wife or with the outside world at that point during that historial during the and during the interrogation itself the three or four hour time he was there own in my little remaining time just like to address one of the other issues that i raised which is presented if that was argued to the jury and i don't know if was argued exactly that way i do remember that the the fact that those phone calls were were being presented the that there one hundred and two und raphael was a person in the community that was never contested but the the argument was that you take these phone calls and you take them out of a contacts they're not phone calls with any type of context and they're not text messages there's no recordings you just have phone calls and the phone calls just probably predate the conspiracy itself and just no reason for that not none that that ever should be put in evidence to put in phone calls from march through september which had nothing to do with this particular case and then even october in december december the court ruled that other evidence was not admissible after that after november th two thousand and fifteen so i'm not sure why that would be admissible and there was no evidence of true evidence of a conspiracy in october but certainly there was no evidence of anything from march to more and that creates the the issue is just it's just purely bad character evidence and and the court should and this is not a case where it could ever be harmless based on a on the facts in this case thank you neutral or a familiar surroundings well this wasn't just a neutral for us around the for the defend it was his own home as familiar as surrounding as one could have nd courts look at the number of agents  and the questioning of the defendant in this case it was two agents agent paula and agent ryan any analogous circumstances this court has said where there's a limited number of officers or agents questioning that is non custodial interrogation the agents never brandish their weapons they never restrained the defendant in any way which he was able to get up and get some water on it the fact that he was a target well i off is near the end of their two out i guess i just flip it around judge there in the fact that rather than doing that the interview continued for a significant amount of time  the questions about possible criminal involvement with mr raffaele the defendant said he wanted to talk to have his attorney present there were some back and forth about how that would be arranged and there was a mutually agreed that it mr occasions agent ryan accompanied him to secure one of the firearms in a back bedroom the defendant went to the garage to sit here his dog and was and was not followed into the garage she was allowed to go in there himself to secure the dog the agents testified in the court credited their testimony but at no time was he told that he wasn't free to leave the table and with respect to that point on the diabetes medication conflict in the testimony this is just a classic situation where the district court hears all the witnesses is able to assess their credibility and makes a finding and a court did make a finding if you look at a dead end and made  after the affidavit was prepared and so that's obviously something the district court could take into account in weighing that of the balance on this issue in our view there wasn't any clear error in the very briefly respond to the you're part of the phone records of petra zillion notices the that had nothing to do with that analysis that was a completely separate analysis take that was the the the other part of that analysis which dealt with the statements that were on made to the agents which i submit those should come in but for other reasons but they had nothing to do with the telephone records those telephone records that really there is no basis to have telephone records outside the outside the contours of the conspiracy to come in mistaken about that and we're not if that was limited to november th i think that would have been ok you know the point is you put in all the records so that you can show the spike i don't believe that was the best in our world i don't believe that was the reason but if even if that world and they get in those could have been much more limited i guess and possibly if you wanted to show something from october to december maybe but they had to go from march all those records two hundred dollars calls that just shows all the shows is just some type of nefarious particular day and at the airport and not necessary in the absence of that with the record show about contact between the two of them it wouldn't that wouldn't be betty and i don't believe there would be any other than the fact that they they worked together they knew each other and between mr probably more frequent calls made between mr freydis and mr mello on november th i imagine that's probably the case but i can't i can't sit there and and say well kid for certain that there was a spike or not i don't i'm not sure but i don't believe that was ever the government's intention introducing us to show that there was a spike and one of them just one of the quick fact