matter i'd like to concentrate i'm obviously unless the court has questions on a mandatory minimum an eighth amendment arguments and the photo race us prior the case in this case obviously was a case of eight robberies committed over i believe over about a six month period of time my memories there are no shot was fired think that could be anything in the valleys and i think well i think that what the what the cases are asking the court to do is to look at some of the circumstances behind each individual in making a that that in light of booker and hookers holding about individual sentences creates a problem for this court and i think when we look at for m joe what we look at is what his priors were i noticed i noted that in looking at the the line of cases dealing with the aid to me what the court spent some time discussing was what was the tr yes yes we can and under the courts under the course description he's a repeat offender he would be we can't walk away from that but i think we still have to look at the problem is  the courts recognize this the problems that the problem is that after booker we are running kind of face to face here with the problem with mandatory minimums and i think what we need to look at particularly w nine twenty four c is a nine twenty four c gives no room to work eight forty one drop statutes have a mandatory minimum they have a floor for the court where the court has to start but in twenty four see thats it but the sentence is under the statute this what the sentences there's no room is no place to go and in a case where we have several robberies then we are simply doing a game of calculation where we're simply starting with five and then adding twenty five and then  five and there is no place no room for the thirty five fifty three factors the other thing i wanted to focus on and i probably should mention this first is i have never practiced in the state of california and so my argument about the california law assumed a maximum sentence for mr creature on the chart and that's how i reached one hundred eighteen years in discussing what might actually happen with colleagues first of all of course we know that the state would have more room for negotiation they may negotiate some of these offenses this lesser included they may negotiate in some other way but they would also i understand have room under one of the statutes in the way that mr creature would be sentenced even if he wins a trial as he did in this matter on each robbery and so i just wanted to mention same position in each photo array and we're not arguing anything about the way the photo arrays were actually shown to the witnesses we're not arguing about the language that the officers use but we're looking at the full arrays themselves and i that the other men were noticeably bigger but they are when you look at the government's brief on this matter they are some twenty or more pounds bigger and they are visibly  lineups that were the trial exhibits if i can give those to the court to take a look at it is that different from what you have in the supplemental the our it is a little bit when i tried to photocopy those that came out can you know considerably darker so if i could bring individuals and therefore it's unfair we did provide the actual information regarding those particular individuals that were in that photo array to judge cordell he found that there was not a significant difference and denied the motion as a practice on thursday and friday the motion was raised again this time on the grounds that the background in mr creel was photograph was different than the othe backgrounds judge wainer was the trial court judge and he reviewed the photographs and made specific findings that they were not in permissibly suggestive i think the law is very clear that there has to be a show works in the last three robberies in addition he was that guy and in particular gun was found hidden inside the engine compartment his car when he was arrested near oppose a count so there was additional information in addition to the photo lineups that the jury had to find the identification to be true and accurate with respect to the the eighth amendment argument i believe that's with twenty five we agreed to twenty five of mr green valens well it just wouldn't go for it some day maybe there may be lucian by this particular issue in congress where maybe there's a cap put on  the consecutive sentences that can be imposed under nine twenty four c but that's up to congress which more i can say about the other questions for they fifty eight pounds to two hundred eighty five pounds the witness descriptions of mr career range from