second whether there was in for mr bush judicial fact finding in two separate areas finding former convictions of prior convictions and also drug quantity and third where there is a need for committed reversible error by not giving the information with the court stating in writing the previous convictions to be relied upon and we've argued that those words are pretty clear and it requires the listing of convictions the problem of get back to the original point i wanted to make then i'll move to that one and that is that when you're looking at the notice here i think that there are some indications in the statute itself that you no one has pointed that out because it says upon a showing by the united states attorney that the facts regarding the prior convictions could not with due diligence be obtained prior to trial or before entry of the guilty plea the court may postpone the speak thirty days early because we had lots of defendants in certain procedural things in our office and that we really didn't have all of the facts at that time was that some kicks in the second sentence fine you take the time you need as long as you're using due diligence you can even ask the court to continue the trial why would any of that be necessary if you didn't have to identify the conviction in the notice before the trial started of the united states attorney to occlude in the information the complete criminal record of the person or any facts in addition to the convictions to be relied upon is basically harmless so far as har very weak argument because traditionally when courts try to determine prior convictions or the prosecutors try to prove prior convictions they introduced a certified copy of the judgment sentence there is usually some way to connect determine whether something is you new york burglary or a non generic burglary but we're in the well now of prior convictions and even the court shepard's it said and justice thomas in this concurrent we really have to be meaningless the second sentence of a one why wise man is are the prosecutors and the courts told if the prosecutor needs more time to get the facts of the conviction he can move to continue the case  indicate indictment number which match years later for invited documents and whatever they're worth with their numbers leads you to say that you if that wasn't enough for you you couldn't go find those indictments and that doesn't conviction a little too i think that would have met the test of requiring a higher convictions and because he said convicted above and he got the right numbers that's still not enough and now you're out of the question what they're this to that point we're talking about a mandatory life sentence when the judge makes this finding of fact we're not talking about in the advisory guidelines that he's done implementing we're talking about we're did not intend to rely on the facts documents on saying that the conviction for proved here today and i would just like to point out that it's clear from this court precedent that you don't have to have the judgments of convictions in hand and presented to the defendant prior to the in those cases in henderson they missed the conviction date by five years and severino they have the wrong the wrong state of conviction obviously those three months your original documents it was a notice that referred to them the court in both cases  the moving on to them but i would like to just briefly address them off the conspiracy issue all defendants describes the the conspiracy here is being the twenty kilogram conspiracy if you look at the indictment and if you look at  the trial you'll see that that is one incident at the end of the conspiracy but the conspiracy is an ongoing conspiracy between cous cous cous the costo the sono and contrary to distribute crack is that to determine the maximum amount of this if you do a jury trial on nothing and you ask the jury how much was involved in the conspiracy as a whole and the jury gives you a drug booker's it's not in this case because because it has nothing to do the guidelines are not an issue here statute it's a mandatory some mandatory some mandatory y exactly harris docket numbers two forty seven if we did not make it in the excerpts of record but all those stand for the proposition that he was not asking for it was not raising this foreseeability thing of the jury finding in fact he was asking the judge that was all the information that was available to the government at the time that the notice was to be filed and i would like to ask the court to consider the fact that given the magnitude of the related cases that were related to this when the government filed this notice more than thirty days before trial but it mr lane but having lost that battle i think it's a perfectly acceptable verdict form the judge was going through the different documents in them the forms of the verdicts and so i think that we did identify the documents i've got to fight the arguments made our point that