warrant did not contain a description of that second garage unit and the apart and the twenty eight or so apartment unit complex there was no description of that second garage in the application there was no description  a search or premises what's the real problem not the problem the problem is that i mean apart from the fact that they found stuff there right right that's that's one of the major problems that's where their surveillance of this whole situation only localized one garage and that was the family garage that they saw the life drive her pickup into and the agents i think needed akin to a garage storage unit maybe a block down the street because it was nowhere near the apartment they didn't know that it existed they could have gone to just talk to the manager they ignored the manager the whole time but i still stand the problem the fact  don't know the specific raj exists they know that people have stories areas in connection with their premises frequently elsewhere on the lot they include that within the warrant was not a problem the problem is that it wasn't it wasn't  particularly described first of all in the warrant it talks about the warrant and the government like the part of the one that talks about garages that are attached so that people can see when they're when they're s more akin to a completely independent storage unit half a block down the street and just very agents weren't even aware of it until the little girl mention oh oh my my dad uses the saw the garage too and so if if that were the case and it was within the state still the warrant which is which i don't think is with the warrant they should have gone and gotten another warm for this second kharaj with a l the warrant doesn't usually describe the specifics so the apartment work rooms are there it says the apartment right right but this is i think a completely different situation where you have  over one hundred fifty feet around the rear of the apartment complex and it's nowhere near that is in the attached garage did not i mean there was no attached garage the garage didn't have any numbers designated this is for the use of apartment number and that were attributed to mr ramirez there were no findings made by the district court judge and that's another reason under those thirty two and i did include that i apologize if if that's not defendant argues that there was no reasonable interpretation of the search warrant that would have been compassed an unknown garage but as the court has already pointed out defendant seems to ignore the fact that the search warrant itself expressly authorized law enforcement to search defend apartment and quote any garages storage rooms trash containers and outbuildings of any kind located there on designated for the use of the occupants that garage although it may not have been next to or under the apartment itself certainly was still on the apartment complex itself and i'm not aware of any requirement regarding the proximity proximity of a garage to an apartment for it to be able to be searched the defendant also has argue to the court this morning that because law enforcement did not know of the existence of defendant second garage before obtaining the search warrant they were somehow barred from searching it but this is not the law in fact prior to obviously the search warrant being signed law enforcement expressen expressly sought authorization to search not just one garage but garages not just a storage room but storage rooms and importantly all these locations were phrased in the plural contemplating that more than one might be found in fact corporal matthew john specifically discussed that possibility in the affidavit in the search warrant when he talked about the fact that in his experience that that that i mean conspirators had developed this to kidnap and to avoid detection of their operation period in it sort of looks to me like all you had with the cia was not necessarily a good to see i just somebody said that people in pasadena street are involved in drugs there was an indication that somebody other had this red plymouth and somebody either had this blue truck and they did something somewhere that let's say it looks like a flash could be a flash done a good job of summarizing and i'm going to take another quick pass at it because the warrant itself the affidavit pertain to a number of locations and a number of different potential defendants and it does get a little bit confusing so separate informants that spoke about the methamphetamine manufacturing operation that was going on in at the central avenue ranch in chino as the court stated there wasn't any particular information pertained in the case ultimately when the two were put together there were corroborating circumstances interlocking information that the government submits made their information more reliable than it would have been if you were just taking them alone and looking at the information there was sufficient interlocking was being used to distribute maps so surveilling officers then went to the california street address to conduct surveillance and they saw the red plymouth that was registered to the defendant leave the california street address they saw that that car was followed by the pickups the car mentioned and they saw that they went to a car dealership where they saw the driver the plymouth engage in what they believe to be a flash of money or narcotics and then lost the plymouth they were able to actually surveillance back to the apartment complex but they later saw the pickup truck parked at the apartment complex now importantly a couple of days later law enforcement arrested two individuals leaving the central avenue ranch with four pounds of finished product methamphetamine both of those individual said that they lived at the california street address where officers had surveilled the defendant leaving before the flash of the car dealership now given all of the circumstances the interlocking information that the cia had provided what appeared in corporal jones experience to be a suspicious flash and the fact that the car that they the car did seen ultimately returned to the d only to the truck so you can see the cars and the convicts were allegedly in the red that's correct however that car was registered to that apartment but they never saw that car no they didn't and in fact i never saw th they never did apparently that car was in the garage that they didn't know existed prior to the execution because when they went to execute search warrant that car was in garage number three the garage they did not know about prior to the search but the blue it was in fact registered to that of the cars that they had seen engaging in the flash they stopped back at that apartment complex i mediately following the flash would you believe that that's sufficient for them to believe that they might find contraband of some sort even if they didn't necessarily know that it was the defendant the very least in this particular case your honor six good faith exception should apply here law enforcement had a warrant that authorized them to search the apartment and the garages that were under the defendant's control to the defendant booker the government does agree that a limited remand is appropriate in this particular case given the district court believed that the sentencing guidelines were mandatory and that the court was required to follow them however with regard to the two issues raised by defense counsel of the amount of drugs and the guns i believe that those were addressed by the parties in the argument and the court found that it did not accept defendants arguments specifically regarding the liquid methamphetamine which defendant was even held accountable for  i believe that the court did adequately address defendants concerns and a limited remand is the only thing that's necessary in this particular case thank you thank you   i disagreed with defense and this is the amount i'm going to go exactly about probations recommendation and mr ramirez just butin it those issues all along in a motion for a new decided that will only hold the would only hold that the guidelines were mandatory and then allow them to to be advisory after that and and