matter the issue before the court is whether or not the district court clearly errored in finding that mr quinto best had shot a half as opposed to a have accidentally shooting himself the district court had noted that this was a close case and may not have reached the same conclusion if the government's burden was proved beyond a reasonable doubt instead of by a preponderance of the evidence as we discussed in the brief the district court misconstrued several aspects of the evidence which renders the district court's ultimate conclusion one of the issues he talked about was the range of fire which is basically how far away from the entrance wound is the fire are he determined that he could not determine that was indeterminate as to range of fire  typically there were three range of fires that are used there's close contact where the gun is and physical contact with it at zero or very very short distance just a couple a set of meters intermediate where the gun is near but not in contact and here that where if you held that the barrel would have to be much closer to the head i think it's certainly possible to hold this god you know way to that for a half to fill this gun in a way that he could have shot himself also the district court essentially turned itself into a firearms expert without any showing at the district court was qualified as an expert to challenge mr quinto pascals testimony about  gun not working properly there was a witness investigator wilbur who did qualify for firearms expert however he gave no testimony regarding the ejection mechanism and had not tested or examined the ejection best mechanism investigator lippard also testified that the gun was in poor condition at operated in a consistent way those are kind of the main points regarding the physical evidence that i wanted to had been before the shooting that showed them there for a couple of hours talking and and doing other activities and then leaving the bar and that while there's some question in the record is to be exact times based on  some inconsistency is in the in those in that video as to how it recorded time it does provide a starting point for when what happens next occurs the ending point is the type of the nine  however whether or not mr quinto pascal shot a f or a f shot himself either event had to occur within that time frame so really the time frame does not make a significant difference to to the police that you just throw it in the car but it's just a morning at trial under oath was consistent with the district court's finding that the gun it placed in of the car along with his testimony that he pushed it under the car  i would like to reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal  that she located during the autopsy exam was in fact all it was in fact sucked dr kraus who actually clearly said that he could not determine if it was because of the remarkably long path of travel of this material that was actually inconsistent with the finding of start and instead what it was more consistent with in the finding of white that there was some part about dr rao too is she made a pathological determination regarding the range of fire meaning that the only evidence that she looked at was the pathological tariffed arrest ix of the victim that she noted during autopsy she doesn't look at for example how dirty the gun was when police recovered it he doesn't look at cooperate or statement or eyewitness testimony he is limited to but the district court also consider that the gun was found by law enforcement statements that the defendant to police as well as his testimony and the statement that witnesses who were rated by the defendant at the jailhouse confession and so the district court is allowed to and consider the whole of it in the case and that's how the district reach extraction mechanism did he personally examine the gun and concluded that there was no problem with it he didn't say that it is order that your your honor your correct about that was the defense point that there's no basis to think he's qualified to make that judgment that was the argument well and and the point that i'm making is the judge also had defendant told law enforcement the night of the shooting and then the conflicting testimony that he gave that was not the same but just report also made specific of all of those characteristics that are really hard to get captured from the press that the manner in which he tested his long pauses after i would ask a question he and so to the extent that it's not a case of the district court ignoring the defendant's testimony or evidence this isn't there or who considered found it credible finding the reason why it's really important that the gun is not to aggressively up against the victim's head is that investigator limpert did and demonstration based on the victim's height and more unnatural and uncomfortable the victim's positioning of his hand would have to hand and arm can chew and so the farther away the got is the less likely it becomes that this is an accidental only outcome the suicide the government's also arguing that the the farther away that paralysed from the head makes it more likely that the defendant was the shooter and stead of this count material as it passes through and then the bullet deposit is deposits that material in the wound so it is a product of the combustion from the gun powder as the gun is fired the reason you don't get more than shooting there was testimony from investigator whispered here that the gun wasn't poor condition he didn't specifically testify about the cleanliness of the gun but there is some suggestion there that if the guns in poor condition it might have also been dirty  and there isn't a whole lot of difference between a contact in a short intermediate distance the contact is when the gun is pressed against the head or within a centimeter to the intermediate distance is a little further out you try to eject bullets from the gun it happens sometimes and as far as we know from the d c i they basically test fired i think five shots from their report they did not indicate that there was a problem with the ejection mechanism but it also doesn't indicate th demonstration and i would agree that sometimes you get further away that's more awkward but if you hold the gun upside down or sideways you can get your arm further back and you don't have to get all that far back to have an intermediate range of