name is daniel tell us they represent michael clarke and with the federal public defenders office and i'd like to jump right in with the pranks hearing issue that we've raised here in the case so we have a disagreement with the government about whether or not the requirements and so that's what we have it we're not talking about something that was immaterial we're talking about significant information that once reform passed the affidavit in a new way and had to be  had to be considered differently but there's an additional aspect to this and that is once you include the omitted information what does this do to the totality of the circumstances in the government's view is not we don't have to consider that at all all we have to look information that you need to then examine it more closely and look to see if it's corroborated if there's any video if they're controlled by the recovery of drugs because if a person can simply omit information and wait to get recovery so that's why i thought it was important about the lack of video evidence recovered handa hands anything like this we have a police officer who's sort of been caught leaving out things that any well trained officer should know to include and then we're asking you everything else to use it and we have to just the mom and i mean the mom's on the mission because the daughter's hooked on heroin right away so ignore all that ignore the mom on a mission totally because the mom on the mission was the one that i don't remember the hotel number like a room to something right and i pointed don't have much by way of his training and experience that's boilerplate we don't know what the mom could really know she has a daughter who was a drug problem she says but i think having a few working and getting to examine these people is find out what did they see what did they learn and know more about them by way of assessing their credibility and reliability that during happened when you allow this short circuited means of the new information coming in and without any attempt the consequences for that having been the omission the omission was required under the law for i have understood clover to say what's required here would be a frank spirit and the choice between recklessness negligence or some other explanation really left or fact finding that hearing for you when you agree with what they do i think that's another reason there should have been a hearing and again it was we're not just complaining about the lack of the hearing row judge we are about when the search warrant was executed is there any evidence other than the photograph of the clock itself and that the clock was correct the district court i don't recall the dates but it was definitely a feature the government did of pine job trying to explain an alternate reason for why the clock may have had a different time but then the defense countered with an explanation by medicaid it can be changed it sales are part and parcel of the same conduct in the p s are made clear that he kept his drugs up in the chicago area he went and he got them any salt from the drugs in wisconsin this is very definitely relevant conduct charged trying to explain so there was additional drug sales that happened after his at rest in chicago but the point was if you're warehousing all of your drugs you know place and you're selling them multiple locations i think they're still relevant conduct so far as the commission intended the term and i've not seen allows you to snap off the street thirty different parts of a single event and call them discreet prosecutors to lengthen people's prison sentence by having serial prosecutions for what is in fact the same drug conduct and say what you are about the war on drugs or about criminal justice the guidelines stop this was that's on my mind when i think about this particular issue because i'm not sure the government you know would agree with entirely with how related you know you see the conduct because there are some differences i mean judge pan they're entirely related or not i mean there's a lot of indicators that they are but were you in for plane air and there are some indicators that may not be so how does that come out what i was i would like to think that we're reviewing to know all because guidelines are supposed to be earlier in the day that's criminal history but if the end result is that through improper application of the guy somebody in prison for a longer period of time then they should then that satisfies clean air because we  same substances same you know and all all this stuff and yet somehow i'm going to tell you today that it's not relevant conduct and those additional seven hundred dollars euros should come off the board to be in order does the intervening arrest make a difference in that you know religion i don't think so didn't end criminal conduct judge to looking with the offense conduct is right in the relevant conduct and so he's got two different rask but nevertheless the same sales of the same substance some differences but i don't think you know that we can credibility was addition they never break investigator massa's credibility they never raised their lack of his background or experience and district court so these are brand new issues that are being presented here that i frankly i don't see this waiver as an amplification of an warrant based on a confidential informants report without telling the judge that the informant was paid for this is a regime that he had fifteen prayer convictions and two pending charges of the history of drug abuse the point you were making of our wisconsin law i think is just in that investigator mosse may not have been reckless as far as like a measurement of his mental state because this isn't the way it's practiced in wisconsin right but i don't i mean i don't think it's neither  that was never raised to the district court level hadn't been this would have been addressed there and the government would have responded then like we are now so this is a brand new issue also with what the defen something that for two particular two it's unusual the government said that the officer investigator had twenty years of experience in the twenty years experience doing what if you were on desk duty for one thousand and three quarter of your twenty year career then it may be relevant to instead describe how significant your drug experience that wasn't done here to give us much context for how are we to put stock in the you graduations of the investigators here the that there was a totality of the circumstances malice but there wasn't because we know that there were things that were considered there go no totality it's pretty simple and then if the government wants to get the federal strength sentences it should