that there was a split in the circuits prior to a amendment two thousand said there if the circuit tried to define in connection with using the definition which adds which distinguishes but it strikes me that that the government has a very strong argument that the district court made the appropriate factual findings that there was a gun that was easily loaded he was rummaging around or there was a lot of ammunition in the car and a factor in that this was in connection with this apparent felony offense so i need you to focus for me at least on why you believe the district court abused its discretion in making these factual findings then your honor those are excellent questions where i focus on is accessibility for one which is the was right underneath the seat as that the court militant counsel look and looking at age twenty one of the transcript so i find that the firearm in the end the mission were easily accessible to mr miller and that they had the potential to facilitate is drug possession given that they were in the car with him and he appeared to be rummaging around in the area where the firearm was sad i don't have any quarrel that the court could have gone a different way why isn't so difficult that in italy the court at the office or had seen him rummaging underneath the desk or and in fact it took two sleeps around the c a very small area but but that council at page twenty one again and i find also that the magazine and the loose and munition were easily accessible to mr milton are the gun wasn't loaded but it doesn't take any time at all to load a magazine into the firearm and it can be done in a short period of time so we get around that fact those factual on endings are after we find that th factual findings were clearly erroneous log because the only way that he could have had access to the gun is he would have had to stop the car get out do exactly what he did initially by rummaging argument at least in part was that even if we accept the finding of accessibility simply having a gun accessible when all you're doing is possessing individual what you aspire are quantities of drugs that that by and that is why in this case it is it is simply he is a drug addict so he would have had the drugs regardless of the gun the gun happened to be in the car he just somebody that  that in shields he they made a distinction between protecting himself and protecting the drugs and i would i would only say that no he did not make a distinction at all in this case heading out of town his wife was in another car with camping gear and so there is certainly we didn't put on the record as to why his wife was in the other car because his wife was also on findings were based on the testimony that she heard from the officer she credited the officers testimony that he saw the defendant rominger rummaging around the area where the firearm was later found and you know that this court can only overturn those findings if the district court's findings were illogical or impossible the mr ivan at least seems to want to take a certain point of time when this search was conducted and saying that it was rendered useless at that time but i don't think that is you know the timeframe that the court should look at the district court found that the defendant knew that the gun was there when officers are outside  the defendant's conduct and here there was no finding that this firearm did in bold in this defendant's conduct isn't that pretty close to a necessary finding to uphold the for l answer no you are because the note says facilitate or potential potential key facility so that's that's in the sentencing guidelines and that's it uses the word potential and that work should be given it's basically with the simple possession of those drugs well and that you know that the court the swanson case in the reagan's case he saved someone's going out in public that's different than being in you know in your residence and here the course should also look at the fact that there's all these other items that were found there's multiple spoons there syringes there's just scales residue on it you know that ever ever but the but everybody was very clear testifying officer the judge that this was not a selling situation this was not a distribution situation these were very small quantities this was a user so i mean i'd like to hear more of your answer to judge know are there is a gun here but very small quantities absolutely no question according to the findings that this was under distributor but was the user so what is there here that would indicate that if we went with you on this that any gun anywhere would using these drugs and he has all these other items with him he may want to perfect someone from stealing his drugs he has this residue on the scale he may want to make sure it's going the right amount and the defendant has a criminal history here too  the the idea that he wants to prevent somebody from stealing makes sense you know makes a lot of sense of the trafficking situation maybe in some possessions actuations where are the amounts as such that it would be worth stealing but but these have outs are  as opposed to the shield the case with marijuana i mean that the laws changed so much on not that it's so would it need a gun for protection and to the your honour's your st point if we just looked at you know street value and quantity then you really just going to merge the drug be possession we have to show that it involved in it you know i and i think you know how being the gun here in this case and going on public with all these items with all these different types of drugs made it easier for that this defendant  so i don't think and i don't think there's anything that's saying that he had the ability to have these pills and all i would just like to add to judge pearson's point that the defendant never put any type of other reasoning on the record any other explanation as to why had this firearm and i don't think you know given you know the sentence you know there was really no other innocent explanation there's nothing about needing it for protection or for target practice for the thing like that  n some circumstances certainly some of the public with these substances may want to protect the trucks that he has on  him if there's no further questions and i keep my time and i have no further questions on counsel i think you use your time but if you'd like him for rebuttal happy to put that on the clock