i'm just looking at the actual and the affidavit what is stated because that is correct because that is the basis for the probable cause for the search warrant that sent sentence refers to him just as identification of the phone number ok that's home call was at two fifty five pm on april twentieth the next sequence of events all take place on april twentieth in this phone call shopping center ok he's under surveillance they're following take correct they're also listening to his phone calls because a phone call between sap and u t was on one of those wiretaps now they notice that the hispanic male gets out of his car because he picked him up gets out of the car with a shopping bag so they have other agents that are following hispanic males but now the agents are still following  when he reaches his home they do a traffic stop and they search for him thinking he has drugs thinking that's maybe where the drug you know he handed him the money and he got the drug somehow there was nothing there ok they believe he's going to bring money there and drop it off all right meanwhile they're watching him take the phone home they're watching him this whole time it's sad but did deliver money for this drug by which you would have had to have picked up that money somehow or sample would have had to come to the house at some point while he's doing the surveillance there's no mention that they seized after there's no mention those two to go and search in the bushes or carry anything you know look for anything or there's anything we're under t in new paragraph and then under ve eleven forty five k observed leaving the parking lot which would would lead you to believe the drug bust went i mean the drug transfers went down they got their money he fit in when did he supposedly leave this money there was no way that he could have left that money during that time span that short less than four hours of the time of the telephone call the time that mr uteri return show where the items that they wanted to search for is also probable causes contain that they're going to be found in mr sampson's house the phone call is only alleged money but yet if you look on the list of what other eight thingy categories of things there's no mention in here that gives any probable cause to search mr savva songs for those items there's not even probable cause to search his home based on this phone call and then if you look at the found call and that was argued in the lower court it was a phone call in part some all of them a parking place and there is no mention of what the conversation really what transpired there were no code words that they can say we think i have to go on what's here because that's in the record the thing is though they were talking about going to a few known he said he wasn't sure where he was going to go or or are not that night or there was a master he wasn't right which the united states our position is simply your honor the district court's finding that the search warrant was supported by probable cause is correct and at the hearing the motion to suppress we agreed that there was a limited portion of agent rothermund affidavit in support of the motion or the application for search warrant where mr sapa the defendant's name was mentioned is limited is the one paragraph argument i believe i stipulated that when he was under surveillance that day on the twentieth for a good portion of the v a by agents and he was stopped at pulling into his driveway i believe and i believe i  interestingly enough he had been accepted as a as a federal prison guard at the federal detention center they followed him to the federal detention center that day they fall into allam on a shopping center that day they followed him where he went they saw his words that's correct that's correct your honor there's nothing in that affidavit but there's and i think the court and the district court handled that more in the issue of whether a franks hearing was required  like and if you didn't find him home they do something later and they talk about a barbecue and they talk about you know the funeral now it's very difficult to find probable cause a long time we would offer you are an argument was that that based on this phone call in comparison or in context with what was going on and judge my wife said you know if somebody wanted just to leave an envel stand in as a bodyguard that the day before it came in it came in that that conversation came in just prior to the surveillance of woody where he met with mr simple one of mr supposed to the left vehicle carrying a shopping bag that he didn't have when he went into the vehicle there was counter surveillance that day i agree and we stipulate that there was one short paragraph about sophos conversation but a magistrate judge this court has held is allowed to draw reasonable inferences based the court have any questions for me i think my brief lays out the rest of my argument thank you from porch in an apartment building you just have a doorway but again he was under surveillance at the time of the phone call we don't know the time that he was under surveillance it's just your honor that there was no probable cause to support not only the search warrant or the arrest warrant and so