as for the third and fourth arguments made in my opening brief it's my intention to submit those what i would like to do is focus on the eyewitness testimony in this trial  bear and the neighbor mrs bradford officer bear and concealed in the south behind a wood pile one hundred yards away from the home and was taping with a video answer happening on the back side of the house he positioned himself what was the equivalent of a football fields length away and taped these events and i've looked at that tape and i have to say i've got your word description but given the you know look at the tape and make your own conclusions as far away as that may have been as you say there's a lot of time spent  think that is she identifies him from the tape and there's no dispute over that but what i find troubling is if you look at the quality of the tape what you're really asking people to do is give you an opinion as to who they well we raised the objection i think that i think the court decided that it was reliable on balance going through the different factors  theory because it seems to me and was certainly currently aware of the power of photographic images that if you would have preferred that with somebody describe verbal only what was going on and his hair color and fairly distinctive features if if maybe the cop i mean i and maybe the videographer never saw the guy but for a neighbor who has you know physical observation what else the officer because they wait many months to have him look at the tape then they start showing him a known booking photo of the defendant and then they have them show up in court and watch him and to me what they're doing is they're verging the gap between a poor quality video and and his desire to to support the case as one of the primary officers he has a vested interest in the case  most error in light of what the neighbor testify to i think it's important to keep in mind that the neighbor wasn't there when the advance occurred she said neighbor but she didn't she wasn't around when the day th what's your argument on harm is there i believe the only argument i can make is that it's friendly suggestive to take a neighbor who did not witness the advanced and wait approximately a year and hammer come to and show her videotape and still photo from that videotape of her next aren't abers house and show her somebody that's similar to her neighbor and say can you recognize that person it's the quality of the tape that isn't sunderland's suggested to do that with a neighbor when she wasn't even present and you know there really isn't anything else i can say i think that the procedure here was too relaxed and when you get too relaxed with eyewitness tapes with five actors with red hair what they were required to do the problem i have with the neighbor is she wasn't there shouldn't think what should they have done you say this was bad what should the the ideas on the you want to write an opinion the say they can't do this so if they can't do this what can they do the question is well what's that i guess what they should have done is they should have done more to test the reliability of what she's saying case the defendant was sentenced to two hundred thirty five months because he was found to be a level thirty eight with a criminal history category of one and comparing those two sentences and defend its involvement just you can't see any difference really between them when the judge did nothing tell us what the different well the reason for the difference i don't recall the sentences of the defendant al hunt upon a condo being brought up at the time of the sentencing of mr lopez and if that was the case and i don't recall what the court said in comparing the two was given three levels off for acceptance of responsibility where it where it is clear from the statement of the defendant that he did not accept responsibility even though he did participate in an interview and it's the government's position that the court penalize for not pleading guilty and i don't think that he should be given credit or given the three levels of reduction where he did not adequately accept responsibility for his participation regarding the determination of the safety valve really based on the record and based on the information presented to the court again i think that the court was justified in not granting safety  before the court not only what we argued during the course of the hearing but taking into consideration the trial testimony the court itself as defendant was not truthful when he stated that he had no idea what was going on in tel he from the vehicle the weekend prior to the events and the event occurred on a thursday that it was not conceivable or it just didn't seem to be truthful for the defendant to ask the court to believe that he did not know it was going on and tell the last minute when he decided that it was due to manufacturing methamphetamine now i must leave the residence i threw a curve ball the supervised release question about the next case not this one i mean i could read from the expression on your face which fisher was right wrong case so i apologize you sent me the message very clearly that's what you talking about i would like to begin my argument with