exception to to randy i don't understand that well first of all i don't understand why after booker a print even comes up now that the guidelines are not mandatory and nothing has to none of the enhancements have to be to matter to the jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt and second they don't understand why it doesn't fall into harming doris torics ok if this is actually just a good old fashion of current issue we can forget about booker and blakely the statutory maximum for thirteen twenty six i don't understand how i think can be in this context it is that max under thirteen twenty six is two years unless there's a succession to a pretty it's very narrow it requires that anything other than the fact of a prior conviction be improved beyond reasonable doubt and in this case because the government introduced two removals the district court necessarily had to find that one of those removals came after the activists are you saying that the jury could have found that the earlier removal took place but that wouldn't do the job serious nature of the prior i think it's possible to the government especially that she would not have received a voluntary departure had he asked for it wait a minute this case of murder yes but it was back to give breaks factor to determine whether or not someone is eligible for relief they say so and you know in other parts of the immigration murder being a murderer could be outweighed by being an illegal immigrant prolong i'm not saying that but what i'm saying is that under different  observed ninety percent of people who are eligible for removal get it we're not talking about relief from deportation in the context of staying in the country and that's my story your question we're talking about being asked to leave on his own so maybe he can come back later and almost everyone who is eligible for voluntary included in those was also a murder in which the defendant invented that he went out with his homeboys to look for this particular defendant he then was adjudicated as a juvenile the murder was removed from the country and has continued to come back and think it's criminal endeavors but in one thousand nine hundred seven the issue was whether or not he would have been plausibly possibly eligible for ninety seven what was his record at that point beyond the juvenile drive by shooting beyond the juvenile drive by shooting with the other four contacts the other four of us with with the court it is not the government's  it's always the defendants for show prejudice and and i believe it's interesting to note that counsel continues to say what the government needs to establish that the reason is because when you look at the fact incarceration convicted of murder and it should be noted that the cases that talk about discretionary relief and that's what we're talking about the nine years he was in the u s seven of them he was enthusiastic he was in custody for the murder conviction for just spiegel who have much more outstanding equities but it should be noted that in this case it's not just a possibility when there is a great criminal procedure the dependent has a heightened burden he has to show outstanding or unusual athletes and so not only has the burden on him it's a heightened birds something for him to make a possibility claim on that it takes many more facts that the district court here considered all the facts going for him his family was here his family brought in the earth the father did say they relied on him person port but of course the judge was was clear enough to say that had to be after the removal because he was in custody so he did have some family ties but other than that what we have is a person who has constant criminal contacts from within a year when he entered what do you do what do you do about this were subsequent in this statute at thirteen twenty six the one your hon one was after his felony conviction there was nothing in the instructions to stop them from using the one before still on the conviction so for all we know that's the one that they used but it looks like that's not sufficient under thirteen twenty six b one that's what i'm confused about well under thirteen twenty sixty one if they it's a judge found factor it's a sentencing and handsome and so we don't have to submit it to the jury and that's what c but even to step back a minute where there's two deportation the reason there's two deportations here is obvious it's because a defendant was arguing about the the the fact that the second one was done by reinstatement so that's why we have to hear and the fact is there's just no contrary evidence nothing was ever put into evidence nothing was ever argued by defendant that there wasn't that second  deportation there's nothing to suggest that there was any question in the jurors minds whatsoever so even if it is required then clearly the jury must have found that but i would argue that it's not required  doris torres and it is that and and even if let's see if i've got this right he was deported twice and there really is no factual question about theft the only issue is that there's  federal practice of relying on the first deportation proceedings so that when they come back in and get thrown out again it's based on the first one really have a case or rallies is compared and i think correctly that says that's not good but that case is not effective it just said that the late the ins did it was contrary to its own regulations it didn't make it violence of a few process it made it otherwise illegal and so even if morales as tara was valid we simply nothing to suggest that there could have been any even possibly possible even a possible finding otherwise then clearly here the jury must have found an