k let me begin with the drug quantity calculations and then proceed from there the drug quantity calculations really based on puffing statements by mr lowe the amount of drugs that result were two hundred and thirty five grams total over this two month period and as it was a result of that because they were the statement his well i can sell five pounds but have only so three pounds that may be supported but here the sales are very small eleven grams one time fifty five grams another time one hundred and thirteen man that was a that was a largest amount that was that would be the government of over four thousand dollars but what the is or said was even if you discounted that there were still over three thousand what's your response to well it would only be a level thirty two dollars if you excluded the it if you exclude the statements that are that are made and you only look at the actual not be hard was there in one after the drug quantity was determined the court also then found that a gun was possessed argument and that is this is governed possessed was found in his house or other people living there but it was in a search warrant eight months after the actual transactions in this case therefore it was error to enhance a sentence by two furthermore in regard to the club issue and the premises there just is not sufficient evidence that he had a premises that was being used just as the drugs indicated somebody brought in the drugs  but that's not evidence of a discussion of the club or came in a situation where he was outside his house and all the transactions were made as hass and  testified in spanish everything was translated for so when he was asked about his death yes he was asked about a club of what the the only evidence we have about what a club zero is is from the agent who said a club  some place where it's hidden it could be a car it could be underground it's not necessarily premises so when he's asked about a club he says yes and then says i was that's what i was told to say but there's no indication that that is a premises where that is so i think that the that should not have been at the two points there and finally i think the leader issue is fairly clear is clear from the  record there is no showing that he was a leader organizer supervisor of anyone else he's a street level supplier when he went away he said you could find somebody else to get your drugs from and they did  evidence or or further information presented and to say that it's a zero on that and that is no there was no evidence presented the sentencing on any of these issues it was just submitted our the leader organizer and handsome and if i understand their record correctly there is only a very very brief piece of testimony is there anything else other than that you know three questions and answers in the record that demonstrates that the defendant here i apologize your honor didn't take to because those was the undercover detective and he would be in the defend the defendant contacted the undercover detective and he offered to provide the undercover detective front of methamphetamine up to an entire pound management organization supervision and on addition on for fourteen of the supplemental excerpts of record there is explicit statements in which they wish to partner up his business so yes you have the occur now the runner who was not the defendant but somebody working the defendant's behalf so the undercover officer had to supply the money before the defendant in this case would give him appropriate on remain to have the judge consider the effect of that if any of the distinction in other district judges look to this instead there is a disparity in the disparity is