we need if we if we don't rely on the first information as we do because we don't know what's in the second information because we're cement first information because if you didn't plead guilty to that we don't know what he pleaded guilty to we don't have the language that  unequivocal and this was addressed in the sheppard case where the government wanted to put other kinds of information because it said you know we have to rely on the record keeping of these state courts it might not be very good if we could put in this other information and we w at least it is a story in that case and i'm just trying to understand why it wouldn't be well i think that it's clear that was a store but the store can be used in a broader sense than any close building with a roof and  acts don't have street addresses carts don't have street address and can't make the conclusion that anything the street address is going to be a generic burglary true but if you have a street it's and issue along with other things so in other selling items or it's there for the snacks for the people who work in the buildings nearby it's it's not an easy art but i think the court has to look at what the government's provided very carefully wasn't originally information filed in the callus county case there are two handwritten references to an amended information in a document called statement of the on statement of defendant  say amended information but i don't believe there ever was an amended information included in the record an affidavit from the county prosecutor who had looked and said that there is nothing no record in the court docket that there ever was amended information there's no record in the minute guilty that there was such a document but what it is piers that the judge i think made reference to it and the plea agreement really makes reference to the city of kind of in this situation where they're kind of canceling each other out when you have to was one because the judge starts to talk about an amended information and the defense lawyer says the government dismissed count four so basically seems to be doesn't seem to be buying on the idea there's many information suggesting there was a count for which wa i'm not aware of any card in a farm market that is going to be selling beer i think if you look at liquor licensing laws are fairly tough i think it's exceedingly unlikely that anything other than a building that is closely regulated is going to be a source downstairs so it's a two story structure perpetrator it contains stereo equipment to be right and the defendant just went in through a window and then for the third one we have a fact that this is a store that sells beer and has an alarm system and has wires to the alarm system that you can click to get it and again it's got windows because the defendant's broken windows is large enough that two people went in applying common sense to each of those descriptions even if  and so in here what's the significance or any significance to the fact that it's described by him as a store where the other one he said he went in and it was a business burglary business because he had anything what's the significance of the store selling beer with  can't because that would basically take outside us outside of taylor we're basically not supposed to have many trials on the afterlife faster still can't even and initial notice of what's in the recorder's office i guess i think we would receive sort of strong negative response from the court if we did try for instance there was someone from the long view police department was closely involved in this investigation i know from other cases i've done i recognize the street addresses i know what these buildings are the of the officers know a lot more than i do but