two motion from the united states district court from the northern district of illinois our original appeal part or to grant the first round was that the district court erred in denying brown's motion without first making a finding that the amount was part of the responsibility for the court to not make that as a bind it was just a statement that was written in the court's order then furthermore in the court's order at the district court level the court says that there could have been enough before either forty or forty two but again i would say much to court that those were not sufficient findings in order to reject mr brown's motion now and davis which is cited and how much how much stretch would have been threshold for determining a dependence based office whether so the court can make findings the district court can win there or with either of looking at the record or holding subsequent here but in this intuition the and the thing that the court did say it was not sufficient enough in order to be a finding in order to reject mr brown's thirty five thirty two motion so what i would ask the court to do is i would ask  good morning me please the court really right in your behalf the united states your honor is the district court's conclusion that the defendant was responsible for more than four hundred fifty kilograms of cocaine constituted a proper finding of the amount of drugs to support the court's denial of his thirty five eighty two c t motion and the defendant claims that the court's findings were not conclusive or without explanation and that simply ignores the t of the district court's order as well as the cases where it's sentencing below i which was never challenge an appeal by the then at the original why didn't the understand why didn't the judge say to justify his conclusion that more than four hundred fifty kilograms from all i he referred to his comments at the original sentencing your honor i commented what the district court referred to its findings at the original sentencing for money original sentencing he said more than one hundred fifty yes he said so what what did he have to say somethin to justify his later conclusion that it was more than later in the second sentence and he says more than four fifty but i don't see where he gave any explanation then refer to the witnesses in our now he refers to the original sentencing in addition to saying level forty or forty two it also says i think it's proven probably twice over that so the level was thirty eight and at the time you say he makes these very casual brief comments at the first s fifty yes and he said it could be more could be a lot more he said could but he didn't he did it with that because they did the defendant's lawyer had had tried  to diminish the effect of the three witnesses who got it up into the thousands and the judge didn't respond to that said believe your witness i don't believe what you're saying he just said ok more than a hundred and fifty maybe a lot more but there wasn't any discussion and said to leave this witness that witness and then later with the resentencing there's almost nothing a he why he thinks it's more than four for you think you'd say well these three witnesses to thought they're all crooks of course but i found them credible stuff something like the court did not use those words your honor the parties were so far apart on drug quantity the government was seeking a finding of two thousand nine hundred forty two kilograms of cocaine and the defense with seeking a finding of five all the judge needed to find with one hundred fifty kilograms or more at that time that's out of the guidelines provided for so he found that in then made these comments that if the guidelines provided for one to two steps higher level forty or level thirty six and making that finding the court referred back to his comments at the original sentencing that he did the grounds lawyer have a chance to fifty should the defense lawyer be given a chance to rebut that well the defendant's lawyer asked for a finding between one hundred fifty and four hundred fifty kilograms and the government pointed to  casual that's what bothers me so issue on the part of the judge your honor i think based on the never said anything about the credibility of the witnesses now issue it wasn't a full recent unsing at the point where the thirty five eighty two motion was presented the court looked back at what was in the record asked the defendant's drug quantity and found that he would remain at a level thirty eight because he met th four hundred fifty cua grams or more and there is nothing in the record pointing to you pointed to by the defense in its reply brief in the district court to say why the judge shouldn't  than four hundred fifty kilograms right he referred back to his statements at the original sentencing about the evidence being sufficient to justify a level forty or forty two as sort of a proxy for a four hundred fifty finding but that proxy doesn't work right because we don't know what forty or forty two would have been your honor i believe it would have been if you increase the guidelines for the offense levels by multiples of three which is what the guidelines do trial judge who heard the witnesses are all the other evidence the government gave a lengthy presentation in britain about why over this six year conspiracy the defendant could conceivably be responsible for that much cocaine so the judge wasn't speculating his comments definitely were brief but they were supported by the record that finding was never challenged on direct appeal at the  time and it's request in the defendant's request for a finding of between one and four hundred fifty there was nothing pointed to in the record to overcome with the government had shown at the original sentencing and the court relied on  earlier findings that the defendant was one to two steps higher than what was provided for in two thousand and twelve by the guidelines to show that the defendant should remain at a level thirty eight and therefore women be entitled to any relief under thirty fifty kilograms was part of his responsibilities so you want to remain answer that he can say i find that the evidence demonstrates that there was more than just to translate that language into a finding is what you're you want to it has been presented at this point is not sufficient for for a finding now that i would ask that when we get back to the district court right you're not challenging the sufficiency of the evidence you're you're saying he didn't make a finding yes sure that is what i'm saying and i'm saying this is pretty darn close it may not be in the language of a finding but it's it's the same thing and every man is going to be pointless as all he has to say is i credit that evidence i know that my position is that questions about the credibility of the three witnesses i was his lawyer at the on on the rebuttal for thirty five thirty two there was another person that was employed by the district court for the original trial into the origination and he made those