you you you have seen the light and then you follow way to court is going with it can you tell me why the government would have said from the initial step that it did not apply i'm sorry that you're asking me when i'm trying to understand at least from this i know you know when you look at the guy online and see it it's language is pretty direct it seems to me where we've gone with it is beyond at least in the language of the guidelines which i'm not government in doing that is what i'd like to know well that's a very good question and i think the prosecutor that handled it had very good job and she her convictions for all these individuals i think that the focus they often work together d to go to methamphetamine from atlanta so i guess what i want to thank you both on the face of it it looks as if everything happened in north carolina virginia west virginia but there were times at least according to mr steele th the is understand it which may not be correct under this and handsome that there's an initial burden on the government to show us possessing connection with drug activities i'm not aware of the defendant ever raising a challenge to the government's failure if there was one to meet that initial burden and then the burden would have shifted to the defendant to avoid the enhancement by showing that the weapons link was clearly improbable as i read what transpired in the district court that was the only subject that was discussed well but but it let me understand at least when you look at this guideline and this is why i say the courts look back to me they've taken over so his name i actually wrote a wonderful opinion back in one thousand nine hundred and ninety three on to facebook case  and then it say then it shifted the defendant which makes sense in the guidelines that if that a gun is present then you give to defendant a chance to show the improbability of it being a present gun but when you separate it out and make it two different things it can be present or it can be somewhere else and then he's got to show us clearly improbable that to me that's i mean that's completely shifting things around i don't it but this is you don't have a presence of a gun here you have a gun in which you show you're trying to show it is connected to it from another place and now they clearly improbabilities sort of gets muddled in it because that's a lot to show and when you look at the judge davis case of facebook the connection was with was you know it was spiritual was someone who was a betting it was his cold person who had a gun and that sort of thing that makes a lot of sense but even judge me by a call that a close case so i don't i think this pushes it and i know just killer prank well i'm really kind of surprised with it to be i think it pushes it well i would say this presence of a guy is it different if we're talking about a conspiracy or we're talking about a subset of offense we think about presidents if i'm good i'm distributing narcotics under a forty one and the presence of the gun it means i got it when i'm doing it but we think about a conspiracy don't we think about presents as being different right that it is it is present you know conspiracy doesn't happen at a moment in time a conspiracy is own going until there's withdrawal virginia his base of operations as supply was in atlanta there was no evidence of any kind of juice to show that he dealt drugs and none none whatsoever so i submit that in the car along with hers brother and another person and they stopped the car and they found two firearms job on a lopez claim one of them now why is that important when the defendant was arrested sitting in the car no evidence as to where that far arm was before it was placed on the seat it could be very well that mr bear of mr delgado had it in a jacket pocket or somewhere to put it down when the police arrived so there's just no evidence at all with had firearms no evidence at all that mr d brereton was in the presence of them with their far and again in the same way that with mr lopez mr seale testified at sentencing and the government had that that that was during the time period but just because it was during the time here it does not mean that we can just assume that this bar was carried in connection with the offense of the distributor of conspiracy to distribute meth and that to me and again met dealing with transportation or anything like that and georgia he had a car accident and there was a search as a result of that car accident and when this car was searched and there's no necessarily on mr cabrera in the car even this note we don't know what it is about we don't know and there's certainly the government could have investigated it there's no evidence that that on about this president said it belonged or was related to any codefendant that it was a place for method dropped off for money so just the fact that there was a lot of money and conspiracy and there was a gun found as a result of an automobile accident in april of two thousand and eighteen i contend is not a not and that  all right here and no further questions we thank counsel for their arguments as you know at the th circuit we would now be coming down to shake hands obviously we can't do that so consider this your virtual handshake and our appreciation for the arguments that you made in this case so with that we're going to take a very short recess and come back for our next case