thirteen twenty six case where my client has needed most of the elements of the charge before the complaint was even filed and then eighteen years before the trial he notified the court and the government that he would be pleading guilty the government failed to demonstrate the love that it had meaning we prepared for of demonstrating meaningful preparation and then the test is that the government has to show that it has already spent considerable time and effort such that it is substantially prepared to go to trial on the matter and the office and there are a number of different lawyers with a number of different opinions about what to do in the case like this where that defendant seems to really be deserving you know with a criminal record that does not agree just who is not a danger to the you know  together based upon the representation of the government that i was finding he said you know that the government performed sufficient work in preparation for crowd now that's reviewed for clear error right at the finding the call courtenay now i don't isn't what happens enough preparation didn't occur for the government to be substantially prepared to take the case to trial the witnesses were not contacted or interviewed there was no preparation of a trial memorandum or preparation of jury instructions the discovery that the government is perhaps documents which were back at the rule sixteen stage when i was provided with discovery but there was no motions in limine a ruling about the need to redact in the exhibit so not only were those documents not damaged not provided to the court just so that we could see what sort of redacting the there are two distinct issues that the court must determine today one of which wasn't addressed by counsel during her opening remarks in inverse order as to the way that i prepared it actually i like to go ahead and  had admitted the elements of the offense in fact the defendant invoked his miranda rights and admitted only aliens did not admit all the elements of the offense therefore from that point forward he has began contesting the court was recognizing that this was in fact a complex came the square feet twenty two cases has its own unique issues in this particular case the defendant had used three prior aliases in particular noted in the record  twenty six through twenty nine and finally he he has the name mr moffat peralta so all of these things would be necessary in proving whether or not the defendant was in fact an alien whether been to be supported and whether he was illegally reenter the united states and that goes to the team as a point that it was necessary to have the defendant's identity established and that's why the fingerprint expert was contracted in this case he was contacted early on after a decisions were made concerning the motions that were file that took place in march of two thousand that the defendants motions right there attacked the that's right trial quite often we have a voluntariness here in order to determine whether or not i defendant's statements can be admitted at trial now and in this case there has been no motion filed yet tacking the voluntariness of the statements are hundred thirty five to one that is something that does need to be determined and quite often the district court judges in our district will make that determination pretrial and in this instance the defendant did make a field of mission and there would be necessity to make the determination as to whether or not those statements were fact voluntary so and that's going to make sure that that did take place we were getting witnesses available for that hearing now this all comes back and up until the time that you actually filed this motion in april on april twenty eighth and that there had been some negotiations with the defense well about the disposition the negotiations took place prior to march twenty fourth and the idea to try and resolve cases part of the government having to follow response in the case that did not occur the defendant was made in our response in the case for the government probably what was the response to the motions that were decided on march twenty fourth of two thousand and three those in this instance he chose to proceed there was an offer made that offer was rejected and from march twenty fourth two thousand and three until may sixteenth two thousand and three the defense did nothing in force plead guilty the trial court would have expected the government to be able to proceed for the trial and that's exactly what we did we continued to prepare for trial even after the nose was provided on the twelfth that he was going to be pleading guilty because he had not pla so after the twelfth and what did you do now well after after the twelve to point out and in the in the papers line which most people counsel fingerprints were taken on may thirteenth that report was generated concerning the fingerprints and comparison and that was generated on the fourteenth and now as part of that prior to all of that taking place the government had produced what was basically going to be the trial is different now in pointing out that  judge gonzales was also likely aware that party eight days before trial and a complex issue where the defendant has used multiple aliases as the united states would need to establish this individual's identity so getting the getting the statement that none of the what has been contacted all the way this has been contacted and a part of preparing the statement of facts now there was a connection with the motion of women correct that car contacted but then again i was and that was in connection with the response of the opposition in the motion to dismiss yes but they but they had in fact been contacted notified that they would be called as witnesses for trial in addition to that they were also contacted to notify them that they would fifty one is meet both levels of the categorical approach it meets the first level of categorical proceeding that meets the generic definition of what is in fact drug trafficking and out of the second level it meets the category  approach because the district court did in fact have an opportunity to review the documents the charging document as well as the conviction record concerning mr mata feet and as a part of that the court was proper and this is supported by the courts addressing united states versus winner in which they found under similar statute that it would be appropriate to find a crime of violence in the it was carried out by the agent  owners on the issue of the service of the agents my investigator contacted all the agents in the case and they said they had not then contacted about preparing for trial and so i disputed that issue below and i made my record on that  that the difficulty with this case is that all of the information is in the hands of the government and some of the arguments that the prosecutor makes here for as argument that he was prepared for trial are an attempt to bootstrap as much as possible of the things that were done over the course