morning as united states of america versus tyson germar and mr young let me just say i'm sorry that we couldn't accommodate the request for the continuance we have a death penalty case on the calendar tomorrow and we just couldn't accom so i'm sorry we couldn't do that but we did the best we could so ms murphy mr murphy you want to start off promise become moot because his attorneys trial attorney did a really good job at sentencing and mentioned that had this been a powder cocaine case mr jim i would be facing eighteen to twenty four months which he's already i understood him to be saying is look i'm i'm a human being i'm a judge of course i know what the results were of the wiretap just like in a suppression motion hearing we know  ten month sentence under the mandatory minimum he first had a ten year mandatory minimum sentence for his conviction and then do they enhance from the head of resulting twenty year mandatory minimum sentence so the judge did not have any discretion to go below the two hundred forty months in this case why did it depart from the guidelines or not the judge in this case was stuck at two hundred forty months so therefore contrary to aniline and booker in cases along that line there is no need for any sort of remain and for sentencing this matter now the first issue argued by mr murphy was the issue of whether the district court should have so a spontaneous decided that there was a mental competency issue with the defendant prior to either one of  trials and there was no evidence on the record before the district court to make that conclusion stand that is whether a reasonable judge in the district court's position would have doubted defend its cop and c at trial there's absolutely no evidence in this case that the district court could have relied upon invalid in defense competency and i think it's important to note that when it came time to actually discuss defend its cop and see it was defend its trial counsel who actually said he did not believe defendant was incompetent but simply  had chosen not to speak with him had chosen not to cooperate with them and if you wanted to he could under medina versus california which was a government side to defense counsel is the person in the position of knowing whether at least the initial stage bringing this issue flagging this issue for the district court fence counsel did not do that and when the issue was finally flagged by the district court the defense counsel pointed out that he believed defendant could communicate with them but was simply choosing not to so and what that cause was the government to begin to argue well how could you say these goals defy common sense when in fact they were left everything to defy common sense these goals were accomplish the goals that were listed in the affidavit were in fact accomplished in this case the goals too broad and they were not they were specifically tailored to this type of case the type of drug case that was before the district court and in fact they have been accomplished now the final issue that had been raised by defendants in this of evidence which proving that the prior conviction was invalid and defendant has not met that burden scase unlike boykin versus alabama in which the record was completely silent as to the right whether they had been weighed in this case we have a defense final plea was knowing intelligence because the defendant was had every right explain to him he had the opportunity to raise any questions he had about any right he was actually asked do you understand everything you've been told  the plea the prior plea was knowing involuntary if we make that fine and if section eight fifty one was complied with as i understand this young's argument the mandatory minimum statute is what drives that was imposed i don't care what the guidelines the lowest that the district court can sentence with a mandatory minimum is twenty years even if under the guidelines the sentence would be lower in the absence of the