years that at least i have developed is there does seem to be a kind of an unwritten street gang exception on my district court judges when there are when i was an investigation of  the investigation turned six informants suddenly at the time of the end of the application for the wiretap all six informants certainly were not available some of them were in jail more informants were available and all those that had been available before certainly were not some of the concerns i have including i think there were no trash searches in this case  through and instantly detected which i do believe to be an issue of the quality of the surveillance distinguished from any type of gang activity there were i think three attempts to their cooperation would be brought to detention of the prosecutors which is not it seems an overall when you look at this entire investigation that once there was the situation in july of two thousand and two where and it seems to me that because of this is  that were willing to make by her apparently in jail again we don't know how long or whether they could have been given some kind of immunity and so it does appear that although it's difficult to infiltrate because of the potential danger to an undercover officer there is a very large pretensions of using collaborators on the stick that they they had there were everyone had a case and so all of a sudden this source somehow seemed to disappear and i'm suggesting that that was this investigation was shut down prematurely because it looks to me at least when i read this from the position of edwards and jackson mr coco was not the initial target subject of the october twenty third two thousand affidavit to obtain an order from wiretapping and le coq au and our position is that he knew this and intentionally omitted it because of several items that appear in the record and i and i don't want to take up your time if you don't want to go there but i actually on a wiretap course we can read it in there somewhere there's some overlapping issues what about the sentence with respect to your client yes and the fact that he made a point of not and in fact the judge very specifically indicated to that portion of the indictment and part of the plea agreement indicating that mr local call knew that the powder cocaine he was supplying would be points to each of his three priors when in fact he was sentenced jointly or they were consolidated for purposes of sentencing therefore there should have only been three points which would have put him in a category range for the range would be fifteen to twenty one months that would have been the maximum under our argument indicating that it should not have been a level four but a level two the maximum three perhaps it would have been under a level two eight to fourteen anytime there's a miscalculation in the comes across just from violation of any theory the sentencing if you read that exception to the appeal waiver as broadly as you do there's no appeal waiver of office your no you're out of the way i see it the waiver of the appeal so basically because that does not arise if there has been a problem with the implementation of the sentence based on the plea agreement and the tight end pointed to a drug so we would not even i guess get a waiver of the appeal until the issue is resolved relating to whether or not the court accurately rightly see that the one difficulty with that is he says ok here's here's and various other things that are around here so i guess it seemed to me that first specification is matt and then the second one is you you corresponding to the determent total offense level and criminal history category is there a problem with that in this case i think so because of the language on page eight of the agreement which is page ninety nine of filed documents with the trial judge indicating that booker had now been decided and nothing ever came of that so it seems that the decision of booker  well known at this time but the court just did not address it and i don't think that mr coco should be the ones to suffer those consequences specially in light of the fact in the so we appreciate that and we appreciate your straight on that thank you i saw it last there are other questions i would was actually not a member of the problem of bishops gang she was a member member of a rival gang called the bloodstone villains so then it really brings up the question as to why there should be a wiretap of her phone since it appears from he did not and the amount of drugs he admitted to would have only given him as maximum of forty years and because they found further amounts of drugs how do you get past  first and you know just based on just based on the drug quantity explain this to the world had bought drugs from jackson and after being discovered had bought for drugs from jackson again the problem with that was that yes one could not go beyond jackson in fact it's recounted in the affidavit that there was a time where c s one asked jackson for a ride and jackson said no i have to go pick up two birds so i have to go solo jackson actually telling her i am not going to bring you on any of my trips to the  informant she did make me the threat that if anything happened to her or her became less useful that's correct they did extract her from the apartment which was located in the portal bishops gang controlled area and they did they made a determination not to put her back in the area to attempt to do transactions with other members from the fact that they were still incarcerated at the time of the affidavit for target telephone number one there was also the issue of who they knew as contacts at most they had dealt with either defend deal or defendant jackson and again there is an issue even if they were not incarcerated as to what type of information they would be able to obtain and the information that they would be able to obtain w insufficient to uncover the scope and many other aspects of this particular drug organization c s five and c s six had maintained and continue to maintain that they would not engage in any kind of drug transaction with the subjects or engage in any activity that my cause their identities to be revealed and so their usefulness was very limited and was restricted to essentially background information as to why he hasn't raised a constitutional question that would for outside of his appeal waiver take the court back to the time that this plea was taken which was between blakely and booker and so in particular we did not have the remedial opinion that came out with booker and so there was a lot of uncertainty not only as to the guidelines but even grealy did not make any agreement as to knowledge he did however in the factual basis agree that he had provided both crack cocaine and powder cocaine to defendant jackson and the  respective positions were well set forth in advance and at the time of sentencing and they went to knowledge which is a slightly different issue from that and quantity well i guess i'm more concerned about his thing where he says they want he wants to strike he says the government meet came to an agreement that we would strike this that's what he says during the sentencing and then in the plea agreement he also statutory maximum could be based on loan on his involvement with powder cocaine it was the government's position that the conspiracy involved both an amount of powder cocaine and an amount of crack cocaine sufficient to trigger a lifetime statutory maximum however even if mr look coco's refusal or not involvement with crack cocaine were taken at face value he was still involved in one point five kil and it would your honor edwards and look oco made clear that the parties understanding was that the amount of drugs involved in the offense was going to be left open for the judge to determine and that went both to the sentencing guidelines amount regular case i don't think it was followed along the same type of rule eleven waiver as with the other way it was the other way which were taken at the same  wiretap in two thousand and three wiretap that is discussed first of all it was never the existence of it was disclosed immediately in the case because it was included in one of the prior