did not maintain a distance of two hundred feet between his vehicle and the vehicle behind him making the lane sent the link change that provision of the statute applies to driver not dealing with a lane change that applies to passing vehicles that provision says is that the driver of the vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall actually applies on its face it applies to passing vehicles on its face and does not oppose the requirement that a driver changing lanes you know do anything safely clear the vehicle when he moved over on its face the statute doesn't apply even if the statute did apply there is absolutely no evidence in the record that the lane too closely i mean there's absolutely no evidence in the record that the driver behind him was put in any type of distress and i would point out to the court that not only is there no evidence that the lane changed that he didn't safely clear the vehicle but the arkansas transportation code also places a burden on arkansas drivers who are being passed or overtaken to yield to the passing driver in twenty seven fifty one through the second subsection of that statute it states that a driver of an overtaking vehicle shell would yield to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle and shall not increase his speed until completely pas so the duty is on the the driver being overtaken to yield to the passing vehicle the same duty is placed on a driver under the following too closely will the arkansas transportation code places a do that doesn't mean that the driver who's actually doing the passing doesn't have something i mean the safely clear that statute a plan would apply to the driver doing the passing i don't disagree with that your honor i mean statute applies it says the passing driver would have to safely clear in this case there was a distance of fifty feet and again there is no evidence that the vehicle was not safely clear i was unable to find any arkansas state cases pacifically analyzing the circumstances of the situation but i would know for the court the and the only two cases that i found even referencing an unsafe indicating that driver was put in distress i'll note in that case that the appellant did not challenge the reason for the stop as a justification so it wasn't specifically analyzed by the court the only other  to found was a case where the driver had changed lanes and then failed to maintain a distance of two hundred feet between himself and the vehicle in front of him so your argument is argument is that there is no under the fourth amendment there's no legal justification because whether we're talking about probable cause unclear traffic violation or reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation occurred have to be reasonably rounded the officers believe that a traffic collision occurred is not reasonably grounded in the arkansas transportation code the statute at issue here he's going to make that determination though i mean it seems maybe that's something the officer has to make and he can't get out of measuring you know what someone if he does got to make a reasonable judgment somebody's got to make reasonable judgment and they're sponsible to do that is him safely clear but again there's absolutely no evidence to indicate that he did not safely clear the vehicle like a mention is not an option is to accept office testimony the officer's testimony specifically about the distance that he felt should be maintained between the driver and the vehicle behind him arkansas law doesn't impose a duty on drivers to maintain a specified distance between themselves and the vehicles behind the presumably best of out the arkansas transportation code your honor and i will mention that the only expressed provision that really speaks to restrictions on overtaking speaks to passing in the lane of oncoming traffic and that specific present provision does state that a driver has to move back over into the right lane before it comes within one hundred feet of oncoming driver so there are provisions in the code which place restrictions and set forth specified distances that must be kept but here there is no express provision expressly relating to lane changes or specifically stating that as a certain distance must be to the issues raised in the reply brief after the defendant out across a motion in this court specifically requesting that issue be raised and asserting that he or suggesting that he was convicted under a separate subsection  a reason for the detention becomes even more in suspects because on the video the driver can the officer can be seen he does not immediately pull over mr ramsey obviously the lane changes not on the video but he follows him for three or four were looking for him specifically there is no evidence that they were looking for him specifically your honor he pulls over mr bangs and based on observations of nervousness what he called a single key in the ignition of the  however under the cases that have come out of the score things like nervousness a single key in the ignition of the car or caffeine drink those types of things are to conduct which occurred when defendant was a juvenile particularly between the ages of fifteen and seventeen this is not a situation that i've been able to find in any in any court really where a defendant was enhanced as a career offender also the career offender determinations that were made by the district court now in regards to the traffic stop trooper penner did have based on arkansas law a reason they justify the objective reason for conducting the initial traffic stop based on his personal observations and also his reading and understanding of what our can solve requires of drivers in particular situations trooper penner testified that he was traveling in the left hand lane when he observed the traffic violation and observed mr bams his vehicle moved back in front of another vehicle now what was important in this particular case is that the vehicle that mr bams moved back in front of was not a regular passenger vehicle but was a tractor trailer eighteen wheeler a vehicle now under arkansas law as has been discussed in the briefs and here before the court today there are a few different statutes that are at play and again the government has not been able when it comes to arkansas statute three o six has not been able to find any in the case all that would interpret was those passages and so in looking at what the officer determined he looked at that statute he looked at his experience on the roads and he also looked at the statutes that specifically relate to tractor trailers and in particular subsect subsection three zero five now and that particular subsection it shows that arkansas as a state placed an increased burden or a specific burden on tractor trailers in regards to requiring that they maintain a greater distance a distance of two hundred feet behind any vehicle that's traveling in front of them now in making the determination that mr benz did not safely did not safely come back in front of the tractor trailer trooper pender testified that when he is in his experience a tractor trailer is heavier is bigger potentially carrying a very heavy load and  least behind me no sir so he starts getting real close to me i need to go the speed limit to make sure there's a two hundred feet is that no all right no you're going to explain to me how what mr banta duty is under this statute that has to do with a tractor trai your honor i can explain what his duty is under the statute that regards safe passage and his duty is that he not return it to a lane of travel in front of a vehicle until it's safe to do so and in this particular case because the vehicle that he was at in regards to if it was two passenger vehicles he relies a lot on the two second rule which was discussed in briefings to the district court and now in determining what is safe when the other vehicle is a tractor trailer he used in this particular situation used a distance of two hundred feet because of the various things that could happen and how a tractor trailer is going to react to differently now the arkansas statute does put a burden a vehicle that's being passed to yield and so that's to prevent situations as many people have seen where someone is trying to pass in the car speeds up to prevent you from getting back in front of them however the burden is still on the driver and on the person switching lanes or passing to do so safely and in this particular reason based on the statutes that were available based on his understanding of the statutes based on his experience as a trooper on the highways for many years he deemed what mr bams did to be on safe and therefore a violation of the laws and he had an objective reason a reasonable reason based on the arkansas law at the time in order to conduct a traffic stop and when the traffic stop occurred as can happen in any traffic stop once you approach that vehicle things can begin to change and they began to change here and that he approached the vehicle on the passenger side came in contact with mr bangs who was the driver and with mr mitchell who was the passenger and immediately began noticing things that added up to reasonable suspicion of additional criminal have well and that's why i'm trippin or he continued throughout his testimony both the motion to suppress and trial to talk about a totality so he didn't take one particular instance he didn't take the key by itself for nervousness by itself and say oh now i have reasonable suspicion there were a number of factors that continued to compound as the traffic stop continued that would lead to reasonable suspicion when did you observe the observer observe the pattern that was loose or had been kept out of the same time and made the observation of the other factors as well i believe that's how it's articulated your honor that he approached on the passenger side of the vehicle and what he observed the panel that he discussed observing that had been tampered with was would have been across from him behind the driver and old some of the after the search was conducted cocaine was found in and on both people and out of crime we're going to thousand miles of them and by itself it would not be but taking into consideration all of the things the trooper pender observed the travel information that was given to him by both mr benz and mr mitchell the time of day of the star in comparison to where they said they were travelling from and all of the other few factors he took all of this into consideration when he was and trial trial counsel did for defense spoke to him about what he said and in one instance he couldn't recall exactly but stated that and later he would talk about in his so therefore the government would ask that because trooper pena was justified in his initial stop and was justifying in the his detention and therefore the consent that was obtained was valid and the search was good and the decision of the district court was valid in that we would ask that from the district court's ruling as to the motion to suppress the arkansas stop and i'll move into career offender discussion because that was what was raised before the court obviously career offender determinations were very important here because the district court did find that mr bams was a career offender and made that determination and the underlying often  federal conviction for conspiracy and also a state conviction for possession with intent and as has been presented in briefings and in the twenty eight jail letter the the state statute is a valid i mean i guess one is lower exactly when you have these simultaneous state and federal convictions for the same facts that's what happened so conspiracy and the elements of a federal conspiracy especially in regards to the fact of the existence of an agreement and the fact that a conspiracy can take into account more than just one one act there are different elements between a federal conspiracy in the state possession with intent to distribute and there was information that was presented through available records or records that were made available to the district court that there were some other factors that were taken into consideration in the federal and federal conviction now in regards to do you know fairness to not always have anything to do with low i don't i well understand that well in this particular situation the district court did take the connection between the federal both receive criminal history points then under the guidelines and under the understanding of of the separate of separate sovereign state state and federal then legally they can be counted and known regards to an equitable or fairness argument that's something that can be raised in front of the district court and was raised in front of the district court and the district court didn't take that into consideration in assessing sentence even though the district court found that mr bams was a career offender and the district court did question the government as to why in this particular case because of the connection between the underlying often says that a downward variance should not be granted and ultimately the government the army the district court did decide to grant traffic stop was approximately ten hewers the indictment alleged over five kilograms of cocaine and then obviously during trial the government presented evidence of other troops that were part of the conspiracy so what was behavior and so career offender statutes recidivists apartment guidelines in statutes that are that are there are and other statutes that are criminal that are specifically drafted to briefing obviously taking into consideration all of the evidence that was presented at trial especially the evidence of the two traffic stops that occurred in this particular case and were presented at trial then the government would urge this court to find that the elements were established just count in the indictment that the determinations by the district court regarding the motion to suppress were appropriate and were valid and answer the court's question what is the law exactly when someone is in the hands does occur and or based soley on concurrent state and federal convictions i think that is somewhat of an open question considering in a situation where somebody is convicted of state and federal concurrent sentences for practical purposes there would probably be no situation where we know there would be and situation where they were dressed in the same charging instrument and from a practical standpoint there would probably never be a situation where they were sentenced on the same day but that should just be brought to the attention of the sentencing commission are supposed to change for a one point two well i would just question and assumption that the defendant must have been a big time drug dealer to get all this time the answer to that question is no the defendant's prior convictions were a slew of juvenile convictions this is a person who was sort of in thrall to in this lifestyle by his family at a very young age and who was sentenced i believe nineteen years old to a significant amount of time when he came out he was only out for the span of a few years  before he went back in on these charges yes so he is he was not a big time drug dealer he was a kid who was committing this conduct which has gotten him in this position as a career of the federal conviction our position has the record is insufficient to establish an adult conviction the application notes for b one point two state that a federal conviction for an offense committed prior to a defendant's eighteenth birthday is an adult conviction if the defendant was expressly proceeded against as an adult and i think in this case the record would really have to establish either he was certified under the juvenile delinquency act or it would have to at least have reliable information to support a finding that he did continue to engage in this conspiracy after his eighteenth birthday trial counsel adamantly objected in that regard  sock from the wisconsin district court is not in the record before this court for this court to make that determination and i would just close in saying your honor that in regards to the initial stop i would just reiterate to the core that none of the statutes are a lot on by the government in this case place the burden on the driver to estimate a specified distance between itself and a car that is overtaking changes lanes and there was no