charged undisclosed prior suspected criminal conduct that my client was involved in at that point was the first time i had become aware of that and that that initial side of discovery was turned over to me it's referred to in the brief read it was turned over but it was turned over late and much after the plea we went forward with the sentencing on june fourteenth the guideline issues were dealt with on both sides argued sen my client was given allocution and i raised the issue that one of the things in the government's brief i didn't believe occurred and it was accusing my client of involvement in a homicide at our local convenience store and that was based upon what it said in the police reports purported interviews of my client and some independent research i did in the local newspaper and could not find anything judge agrees but said that that was he thought a problem and wanted it checked into in the matter was settled over for approximately a week it then became a little bit longer because of some scheduling issues the government admitted that it was not a homicide it was a shooting and they stood by the general allegations of those things and put forth a sentence scuse me a second memorandum putting forth all of the other these and adding a little bit more detail they talk about corroboration for these things we then went for with the sentencing and at the sentencing on june thirtieth at that time the only thing that was really added was the government put forth on investigator klink hammer from the racine police department and he testifies to information that he had received from confidential informants or confidential informants that had given other the tech to information at approximately page thirty of the transcript there's the beginning of the testimony where the government is questioning  ass about what he knows about this confidential informant to establish reliability and in that instance he says i don't know anything about that that was another detective's confidential informant he talks basically there were three confidential informants that this detective was aware of two of them according to him were friends and had provided information on numerous offenses and things like that and one was so new that he was not reliable and then the state takes that along with other shootings and things like that that occurred and so because these two informants said it it must be so he was involved in it i can say that my client was never arrested never charged on any of these offenses at any time in state or federal court the ability of myself to require as an advocate for my client any information that is provided by these confidential informants without annoying how they saw it what they saw in their relationship we know that they were either paid and reduce charges or money i think is an impossible task for an advocate thank you quick question about the mr richards i think i understand the point you're making about the due process challenges with the sort of information the i'll tell you if the district judge had found on the basis of these confidential informants yeah i think mr adams was involved in the shootings based on what the cia has told other detectives whose information was then gather by the one fellow who testified i think that would present a very serious to process problem when i look at the district judges words in coping with this problem well it looks to me like he's saying look i think so i'm not going to make a finding on every one of these incidents but looking at the at the record as a whole though with the defendant's own words and other indications about his background he does the district judge does say he's well involved in the violent gang culture including the use of firearms in the threatening of people and using firearms against people it's hard for me to see how that is an unfair or an accurate characterization of adams i think there are some statements that are made about clients and i discuss those in my sons their remarks and i did i would you know put it forth that it was a young and mature individual who's be time of the sentencing and five six seven different shootings two different potential homicides one proven not to be a homicide then the other homicide involving jail informants i think that that's where the problem comes in  i went over this with another attorney and i talked to move on it just because it was troubling and i don't know how i can protect my client's rights when it's we ask you to israel protect  right and i'm trying to do the best they can but i do love to have a be able to ask that question of a confidential informant what did you see who told you we don't even know if this is based on personal knowledge you want to homicide that the government relies on or to jailhouse snitches that are in a pod together supposedly for a short period of time with my clients going to jail for about thirteen days and they come up with this six months after that that this purported to slow it one can only wonder why they waited that long if it was all true or anything so i think by the sheer volume of this information basically had to be sourced by two individuals i think it was fundamentally unfair to my client we're talking about a felon in possession of a firearm case i understand the sentencing the sun's ultimately given up by chief judge aris fox was within the guidelines and i know he gave some talk in the it is under the facts it sounds like this is more or they want to go beyond the guidelines because this kind of evidence they're producing the government with one could say that i mean there was a guideline agreement there was an agreement to recommend within the guidelines and that was what was put forth at the sentencing hearing the the second brief that you filed with that did that the did take into account the letter that mr adams written so in response to the initial brief the government file i'm filed the thirty five fifty three and received a sentence within is correctly calculated guidelines into sentencing memoranda and orally it sends counsel for the united states summarized various police reports that recounted seven different shootings the mr adams had been implicated in during the brief periods of time that he had not been incarcerated the reports were provided to the defense and the discovery the sense in court carefully considered these factors and relied on this information in a general and limited manner well considering thirty five fifty three a factors the sons in courts have wide discretion under the guidelines to quote consider relevant information without regard to its admissibility under the rules of evidence of clickable trial provided that the information has sufficient condition for liability to support the the commentary to that section even states quote written statements of counsel or affidavits of witnesses may be adequate under many circumstances so how about a report of an identified cia's who are getting probably some benefit from the information they provide and without any indication first hand knowledge if it was that be a different question than what is here if it was just based solely on a cia as you described and that that may not have sufficient to show of reliability journey but the reports here were corroborated in many other ways with victim interviews witness interviews ballistics information jailhouse  informants telephone calls recorded recorded jail calls and photo lineups photo lineups so numerous other ways that showed that these reports had sufficient condition for liability and they certainly had sufficient ind reliability for the general and extremely limited matter that the district court relied on them relied on them he didn't change the guidelines he gave them within guidelines sentence based on this information i suppose suppose we had this information in a case where you got a nine twenty four c charge for brandishing you've got a statutory range of seven to wife consecutive to the underlying crime with this kind of information raise or due process problem if you became the basis for the judge to impose a life sentence do you think it's certainly closer and there might be a smore of a sliding scale and depending on know as you as you know we wrestle with this problem a lot and we've got all these cases that talk about the problems with the arrests that have to be included in a pre sentence report whether they le to convictions or not and what should the what should the sens enjoy to do about them here we don't even have arrests right so it's true you know partially perhaps because mr adams has been appellant or that the government is aware of requires these reports to be formally entered into evidence the case law on the guidelines and the commentary only suggest that sense in courts have sufficient condition of liability for the reasons stated above they do outcome as he said you know based on protecting the public perhaps life could have been appropriate that ups it would been over the statutory maximum he said the record could have supported a hundred twenty months statutory maximum but at a minimum that the top of the guidelines was what was appropriate and then adams had numerous opportunities to present evidence and to rebut the evidence provided by the government he did to some degree and you know the extent he did it was his choice so unless there's additional questions you just briefly response picking up firing on the court's question regarding the one twenty four c understand what the courts are asking and the only thing i can say to that is to me it sounds like it's a real problem and the government talks a lot of all cloak collaborate collaton collaboration the issue regarding net and the cases they cite takes and that's were the defendant's own words were used to enhance the drug away mission against penal interest in freeman when they're in hansing on the sense of things like that putting a drug wait they're talking about there are been a conviction conspiracy the conspiracy was thrown out and they went with the lowest way possible from one of the witnesses who was credible this is not related in any way shape or form it's not the c gun he was arrested with there's nothing and as i said we did not have any of the information we're guarding what these informants were given for the specific information it was broad generalities and as i said not knowing who the informants