defendant either knowingly carried or knowingly had available to him the firearm in this case the government neither there's no contention that mr graham or actually any of the defendants actually carried the firearms  this ship against mr graham as well or to the court consider that all the court i did consider that motion and the motion was tonight as to that and for the record with the court's finding be based soley on the fact that a paddle bearing the right yes it did and that's where we get to the shifting theories here now we go to the joint enterprise theory that the court of appeal relied on and in fact the warden now is saying that the panel theorist kind of just allowing the paddle theory says well the court of appeal didn't consider that a substantial evidence opening brief where the court says the only rational view of the matter is that whatever armed may mean when the legislature mandated a section twelve zero two two subdivisions the enhanced meant for those personally armed  enterprise theory of liability that because the co defendants knew about the gun and because there were drugs in there and mr graham was convicted of drugs he must have known about the guns that were hidden beneath the box spring and the mattress in the master bedroom that was twelve to fifteen feet away from where he was arrested in the front room before the drugs in the bedroom no your honor three point nine grams of cocaine found in the master bedroom that was attributed to tyrone wright seven point eight grams of cocaine that was attributed to melvin parker that was found floating swimming around in the toilet  all we're talking about two different things pinkerton liability refers to liability for a substantive crime of conspiracy here we're talking about a sentencing had enhancement there are for sentencing enhanced an enhanced months and twelve zero to two of the california penal code subdivisions the only one we're talking about here prohibits vicarious liability it says you must be personally armed and there's a five year enhanced meant for subdivision  does allow for vicarious liability it's a one year enhanced meant for subdivision which also provides allows for vicarious liability there is a one two or three year enhanced men but th when you get to what are those elements then you look to state law and that's what the respondent has argued you must look to state law to see what goes on and so is the narrow focus here whether the california court of appeals determination that these facts which you've already discussed so this why the personally harmed element is that what we're focusing on yes it is and then how wrong does that have to be for us to say it was wrong it is contrary to it is an unreasonable application of the the supreme court's decision in jackson versus with your permission the both the prosecutor and the defense counsel for the individual of crime who was the lessee of the premises in their argument characterized char as sort of a facilitator who was a cocaine addict seven months pregnant with two children who often left the premises when the other individuals were there selling drugs and she did this in order to receive part of the drugs to  of individuals were in terms of who possessed the drugs and who possessed the weapons we have this individual who has been characterized thusly she testified herself that she was off and out of the house that she was pregnant all of these things and yet there were fo weapons three of them loaded under her bed in europe mr porter correct in saying that there's sort of half standing level of enhanced under the statute in exposure in terms of number of years based on the proximity of the individual to actual possession of the weapon there would be no question for example when the officers came in the house and graham had a forty attorney and the prosecutor the drugs and the guns were brought to the premises by these individuals who were selling the drugs she testified that on multiple occasions she wasn't there when she was asked whether her friends came in when she wasn't there sometimes when she was asked whether they used the bathroom in the master bedroom she said they did that they needed to go through her master bedroom to gain access to the veteran to get access to the bathroom if there were multiple indication that she hadn't remembered saying specifically that he had gone into the room but she did and i can give you the references say that on the date she was arrested she had left the home and there were four individuals there  joint enterprise and each of the participants had had access to all of the drugged it would be it would follow logically that if under the mattress there was both drugs and a gun but by having access to the drugs he would have months pregnant and out of the house most of the time was in possession of all five of these weapons california wants to make you go to someone else carrying a gun they can do  you're part of the enterprise and then it's not carry her but you're personally armed if by being part of the enterprise it means that you have knowledge of the existence of the the respondent gave a strikingly inaccurate view of the evidence before the trial court pages nineteen and eight of the briefs they said quote of crime told an officer that petitioner would go into her master bedroom at times citing reported transcript one sixty three four times reporter transcript nine sixty three defendant a prime denied that she said that denied remember saying that to the police officer do you remember the officer asking you a question about as we could go in your bedroom answer no i don't remember asking you that answer no you don't remember answering him yeah they all do my kids do t parts of that i remember saying it that my kids go in there but you don't remember saying yeah they all do answer no but i don't think they're really relying on that whether there's any evidence of the when