good morning your honor is in may it please the court my name is cheryl andrews i'm an attorney at the holton law firm in winston salem north carolina and i am here today to represent the appellant on christopher b the brief that we filed several issues were raised with the permission of the court i would like to focus today on one particular issue that i believe is one of the most important issues not only for mr bolton's case but also for the district that particular issue is whether or not there needs to be a separate analysis when the court is determining whether or not to apply the sentencing guidelines to d one point one b two decision about whether or not a dangerous weapon was possessed and the united states  in guidelines to the one point one before which applies the five c one point two elements commonly referred to as the safety valve and the language in that particular statute in subsection two states that the defendant did not did not possess a firearm in connection with the offense the language that the court made in it ruling in deciding this case would tend to indicate that the court believed that the law was that once they determined that the two to you one point one be too dangerous weapon was possessed in the didn't the court conclude that the gun was possessed during the commission of the crime of in the house where there was there were drugs and there was money and it was in open view  isn't that conclusion necessarily in connection with the drug crime if he made that finding justice neymar i believe i come and say that i work in eyes a distinction which the you can satisfy to be one easier than you can satisfy the the gate for as you point out but the difference is in connection with right practice and and but in this case and finding to be one it seems to me necessarily found that it was in connection with the  drug crime because of the timing and the locale the timing was while the drugs were possessed in the house the money was in the house the house was used as a drug distribution place your argument is a very sophisticated argument and it's very important but are just not sure the facts here would lead to the need to discuss it in any length to what it well your honor respectfully i believe that when the court and in the court's secondary memorandum of clarification of its ruling the court focused primarily on the fact that the law has found that mere presence or  proximity of weapons with drugs has been found sufficient for the two d one point one b two weapon was possessed and the court i don't believe that a court then went on to show or make a specific finding that it was necessarily possession possessed in connection with the offense so my your complaining about the articulation of whether the court recognized the difference is that your complaints are on because it is a very snappy even though the court may have been correct you're saying he just didn't articulate a word and the court and mccain did that finding that to do you one point one  didn't continue in the business of the distribution of marijuana until well after the conspiracy was completed assuming it was completed a verb or two thousand and two as charge and in connection with that criminal activity mr eight the court indicates there's no need to pursue a separate analyst says and that was incorrect so it was an incorrect understanding where the court says i do not find that mr bolton should receive  this court in the united states will see vs wilson case in one thousand nine hundred seven remarked and consider that there needed to be an independent consideration of of the reduction from the enhancement but even if that's the case based on the entirety of the record even if there was a there wouldn't be harmless well i doubt i respectfully argue that it would not be harmless in that it gives the impression that there is an automatic disqualification from the second analysis which is an important distinction to be made within the district that there needs to be a second analysis into those particular facts the language we have no indication or i don't believe there's any indication that the language of saying in connection with w not just to show that because there was a substantial time difference between the conspiracy beginning and ending according to the indictment and then perhaps a year later these long guns these rifle and shotgun were located in the home the court was in my opinion using that language to show that that was in continuation or it was relevant conduct and continuation of the prior offense and perhaps attempting to do that is relevant conduct to find in connection with i apologize your honor me the court is relevant conduct to determine whether it's in connection with certainly and that is what the court is allowed to do under the two that's what i did explicitly explaining that it was in connection with the court found explicitly with the words the possession of the gun was in connection with machine crime yes your honor and the comment you sure the court's not really not saying in this case it doesn't there's certainly is evidence to support what the just me or agree with the conclusion in game two so that going back to judge that question about heartlessness you know making the argument that the evidence was it would be determination under the clear under air standard but my concern is just that it needs to be very clear that there are two separate evaluations that need to be made of the standards  hear from ms harrison that the defendant shows that it's clearly improbable that the firearm was connected connected to the offense so the court in making its finding as this court has noted in this the government noted in its brief the court said and in connection with the criminal activity mr bolton possessed a firearm that in connection with the criminal activity your honor not only satisfies to the one point one but it also satisfied the requirement under five c one point two while the court indicated adjustment did not apply the court was not skirting its responsibility your honor it's simply because of the way this case of the way these facts came out the defendant's actions he put himself in a in a precarious situation all the way around in this case because of his continued criminal activity so the district court was careful in making its findings and in addition to the findings made in open court the district court then you your honor i just to clarify i would like to argue that as the court has focused on the language on page one hundred eighty when the court does find that it was in connection with uses that specific language which is mirrored in the five c one point to my reading of the court's language was that that was the court's way to overcome the time differential in trying to find that these weapons even though they were found after the named time of the conspiracy had ended that was the court's manner in which it used relevant conduct to connect those weapons or the person that those weapons were possessed and the pa connection with my job here's your position because the court seemed to recognize unless you use the relevant conduct he could not make the finding in connection with and the court said he continued the marijuana conspiracy after his arrest and got engaged in this and i can find that the relevant continuing conduct in spirit say so that the gun was possessed in connection with the crime that's what his explanation for making that finding so i that's pretty explicit way to go beyond just the simple too deep recession where in connection with that language is not present your honor and i understand your position and i respect it however in the courts paper filed that was a tent in attempt to clarify their position the court spent the larger portion of its time in that memorandum explaining why the maintaining of a dwelling would be up to a couple to the case and then sort of as an aside said that th evaluating the five c one point two elements look for an additional showing this court and the united states versus shelton which does discuss  a similar statute which talks about in connection with talks about a purchase of a weapon at the sign same time as the beginning of i believe it was counterfeiting the the defendant was doing to then possess weapons so there is more than just the proximity there needs to be some sort of evidence which it has to be going to then yes i mean you purchase a gun and you're undertaking a counterfeit he may or may not be linked and to find in connection with you would have to have some evidence that the reason the gun was purchased is order to protect and in that case in this case we don't have that issue because the court found it in open view in the in the house where the can you show me where you argue did did you did you argue this point to the district no your honor i chose to just let the court consider my briefs and we argued about the application of each individually but i did not particularly argue the fact that the court failed to do a separate analysis no no no no to feel two but there were two separate analysis did you argue that point i believe i just submitted that on my written briefs and written objections as is it because the court was