district court clearly erred in its factual findings as to the weight of the drugs attributed to mr vaile there was not sufficient evidence offered sentencing to meet the required burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence the standard overview before this court today is clearly erroneous which is very a very deferential standard however it is not bulletproof the reason it's the sentencing record must establish the facts required to support the sentence the finding of fact which is the white not reflect the scale of the offense we look to the united states and its in god lines to the eleven and that requires the court to approximate the quantity of the controlled substance the guidelines suggest the court is to look at things as the price financial or other records similar transactions and anecdotal evidence in regard to personal property living beyond the means and doesn't explain the flow of the extra money this court  the lawrence established a guide for considering what this course specifically said that a prosecutor's proffer is not sufficient and that testimony by a defendant about weight is acceptable but that rule eleven proffers to the government then the defendant mr vaile would be required to have the opportunity to rebut any evidence provided through the proffer testimony would be able to try to cast doubt on any of the right liability of the information and the court also discusses the large amounts of cash the inference that can be drawn from finding large amounts of cash on the defendant or in regards to a search bottom line the record must contain evidence to support the attributable weight and credible evidence of the number of transactions the amount of drugs in the transaction and in this case your honour's this record simply does not provide substantial evidence to support controlled recovered after abandonment or during the execution of the search warrant on his home and by my calculation your client agreed in that document to about seven hundred and fifty four grams in was addressed by the court when mr vaile made his objection in the record and stated that he objected to the attributable weight of eight hundred and forty grounds and the court took note at that point and it stuck in that one hundred and forty seven pages eleven and twelve where the where it was stated that the statement effect was the government's version of what occurred so mr vail's objection at that point was clear that he was objecting to the amount even attributed in the statement of only that the court cannot attribute it in that manner because of mr vail's objection and his clear objection that he just simply did not agree to the government's version of the facts and that his plea was to the elements of the facts but person but yes your honor in fact it did and that was basically the the colonel that we pulled this down to was that he rejected the government's argument as presented for a level thirty four dollars but he didn't what are you left with even if we look at the physical evidence that stenson gave an historical account about it still not sufficient that is the bottom line for us is if if the government testimony and evidence presented was not and his proffer he stated the amounts that he trafficked weekly and that amount added up to a two approximately a level thirty and mr vaile conceded that but it was the government's are  trying to go on a tangent here but the government argued against that based on said they wanted to minimise mr bales prosser and say well he was being honest about certain things but he was minimizing the quantity and any further questions at this point the district court did not accept benner sincere stay statement the district court did accept young's hearsay statement at least to the point that the district court found responsible for eight hundred and forty grams of cocaine base those findings were proper and should be affirm down i mean that's my position is what's right there what's right there is sufficient evidence for the district court to make its findings and the district court may consist fission findings that's why you should affirm the district court  a young statement was also corroborated by the fact that it directly incorporated themselves as well as bell and th young statement was probably that by the fact that the district court held you on himself responsible for two hundred and fifty five grams of cocaine base another important point here is the fact that young selling approximately seven five grams of cocaine base a day for bell from the beginning of two thousand and fourteen through may of two thousand and sixteen amounts to over got a test you've got a witness you know that says that and then this district court only held him responsible for eight hundred and forty grams of cocaine and she got a witness that the district court says i find this defendant sold eight hundred and forty grams of cocaine over two years that's not much money at all said he i mean that's money you can easily spend and there was like i said there was evidence he spent it and you're saying we didn't find drugs i mean that happens all the time  selling drugs as he got in the fact what they found was a was one hundred and sixteen grams of cocaine at the house and that's consistent with someone that's getting cocaine and selling it in the quantities that judge a call found him responsible for i'm not i'm not asking you to accept what we presented at the sentencing hearing judge incl rejected that he just he just held eight hundred and forty grams of crack over two years your honor and finding one hundred and sixteen grams of crack when you do a search is certainly consistent with eight hundred and forty grams over two years and the evidence about the defendant spending money on trips cruises gambling and buying vehicles is consistent with eight hundred and forty grams of crack over two years so we're you you know i mean i about belts and cap that young was selling crack cocaine out of the house the gulf tears dried house and that young would sell about a cookie a day for him and we have evidence that a cookie weighed about seven point five grams so if you do that over two years you're  forty grams of crack a kilo of crack the profit from that would be about twenty five thousand dollars maybe give or take over and over two years your honor seven grams a week is that we know it's what you know a day what what young said was he sold a cookie a day for two and a half years if you add that up that will get you to six thousand seven hundred grams of crack but said jane but that's that's not what you have to affirm i'm asking you to from the district court obviously what he's saying is regional even if it was six kilograms over two years that's about fifty thousand dollars a profit that's easily money he could burn through especially when you've got the evidence that he's buying cars that he went gambling taking trips and cruises and i think klan friends say see cherry testified at trial but she didn't testified to the hearsay declaration that was used to impose the obstruction of justice and handsome and and i really think you know  that but i think if you look at the way judge angel acted and ruled in this case rejecting venner statement he's taking care of all the things you're worrying about he's saying i'm not going with this fifty kilos of crack i'm rejecting the government down the line except i'm going to accept young statement for eight hundred and forty grams and young statement does have cooperation that is right in line with what the district court supposed to do it's exactly how it's supposed to act and it's certainly not clear air i mean i really think we're ok here if you if you read through the record and see that judge incl rejected a lot of a lot of the stuff that they're that they're really complaining about his is finding was very narrow and it was correct and it wasn't clearly  eous standard here judge a course got a bit of room under that standard his right finding here just wasn't clearly erroneous because there are things to to support young statement i mentioned five of them one other thing that i didn't have in my brief is what don't i don't doubt that mr stinson has accurately testify to what he was told by the individuals plural who statements he's recounting but those individuals haven't testified then he starts talking about the incentive and cooperation and why it's not something that he can rely on and when he when you can and the government is calling young eye witnesses young was not a witness he was one of these individuals who statements was being recounted by mr stinson and when the court rejects the credibility of those statements this court must look at the facts in the record the evidence that is provided to support the finding of the attributable weight and there  nothing was obvious nothing was apparent that's all he said about those things so for ms for officer stinson to be the only witness who's sitting up there and surmising and drawing opinions and repeating facts that were stated individuals who do have a motive that the court rejected when the court stepped back and takes the next level of analysis and trying to find in the record the facts that support the attribute attribute to weight absent young statements absent venison recess and sol eleven o'clock tomorrow morning