bargaining is part of bargaining and acknowledged that in certain cases where where a defendant enters into a plea bargain with a got with the government that you can bargain for certain facts to be the other two were too remote and time and unrelated to the latter charges to be considered relevant conduct those two that were not relevant conduct even as found by probation in the pre sentence re does that make it relevant conduct i'm having the same problem the judge has said having it's just missed under the guidelines definition of relevant conductivity has to be course of conduct if there had not been the clear agreement that we had in this case the court could consider but the implicit in the plea agreement here was that mr davis's culpability would be limited to th obligation to provide the court and united states probation office with accurate and complete information regarding this case yes and i think that stands in stark contract to the congress is that contrast to the say to your argument that it was implicitly and plea agreement that there is a next place it provision that allows the government to present this information to the court so what's the response to th presented to the court the guidelines provision specifically put you on notice that the fact that you have a plea agreement reflects a sentencing range based on certain conduct that court only gives all the information that it needs to make an informed since the decision if it happens to have the right questions the ability of the court to get all the information needed for sentencing should depend upon the question of happens  presumption under the guidelines is under six be one point two way that information that is subject to conduct that is subject to a dismissed count or a count that the government chooses not agreement in which the parties agree made an agreement as to what the offense level would be at the very end of that very paragraph is the language that nothing in this agreement a fact the obligation of the united states attorney's office to provide accurate and complete information to the district court and to the u s probation office there's no except for clause in that language and therefore there is no irreconcilable  your argument seems to boil down to well there was no request for a continuance so that there was no plane error is your argument i want about basic the expectation in the whole thing is that as notice will be given i think these kinds of cases are particularly difficult because in these kinds of cases are two sex trafficking cases or where you have a child victim it often times it sometimes isn't told the day of the hearing sometimes it's not till the hearing is actually taken place and a victim sees a nother victim tuss to my and there testify and therefore house the courage to come forward so yes in an ideal world we would we give an advance notice but in reality there are some times particularly in these cases where we don't know until the time of the hearing who of the victims will testify i will no judge katzman that at the end of the we here in the district court asked about whether or not there would be victims testifying at the sentencing hearing and the government said that they were talking to victims the government said in its sentencing ma'am memorandum that it into intended to present the testimony and or information from certain victims and of course the defendant was notice by virtue of the pre sentence report of the those other victims both of the two victims who were the subject of the dismiss counts and c g n g a who were the two victims that the probation office off with respect to claim that there was a breach of the agreement the district court when it allowed this testimony specialist said this is not going to affect the guidelines so there's no possible prejudice in that respect in  at the end of the day this is the second claim that my friend has raised is a constitutional claim that the process here was deprived him of due process sufficient that he is entitled this court noted this separate claim that it wasn't just the notice requirement under the puerto rico rules but the constitutional claim and said at the end of the day you're entitled to a fair sentencing hearing meaning the have you heard enter into any plea agreements that make explicit what defense counsel the same implicit here in other words there's actually an explicit statement that certain other as marks of the defendant's conduct perhaps may well be relevant that will not in fact be disclosed we see in a general way i mean have you ever compas the guideline sentencing means it went a little bit lower and a little bit higher than what the parties at the rule eleven hearing stated they believed guidelines to be on but the other down if the government can say we're going to give you these benefits but they're at sentencing which i didn't know they were going to run when they started to do it i did raise the issue just introduce everything anywhere and then what's the client of