generated so the court mr about saw had been represented by another attorney prior to the attorney that saw the trial and apparently had differences with the  should be promoted and what i'm saying is the judge this is a quick judge has a power that other other individuals within the system and they resolve issues in the proceedings to the to the to to to and in addition to that the i just don't understand how it's prejudicial to the defendant i'm sorry i understand how it's prejudicial to the defendant entering it well when you say it's unfair it's unfair in the sense that if you connect that to the next argument which is the jury instruction ok and which the court basically says you know this as you say for ten teams to talk about apollo talk about communications to the prosecuting attorney not to the judge so if that's not what the ballot is unfair as opposed to what about is prejudicial well it beyond that that it's not so good to lose so with that statement there was nothing else for the jury to look at except to the light what do you think the judge should have done it seems to me that it would be this if this is against interest before you get i understand we look at the jury instruction as a whole but they're complaining about that one piece of it because they're saying that the jury instruction as a whole doesn't cure the prejudice but one i understand your order but that when he says part of a single sentence and i believe in the context of the whole sentence it will be clear what the judge was saying which is that the document and made it as govern the exhibit three is what was filed in the case as docket entry ninety four which is an undisputed fact whether it was written by the defendant or not that letter is what was entered in the docket and that's what he was instructing them at that can be so accurately and readily determined that it can't reasonably be disputed because you  the same sentence with several other similar facts one that judge the reason was the previous judge assigned to the case to that proceedings were heard before her three that the transcripts that were used during the trial are official transcripts interposed to the introduction of that not so there was no objection at the time that the letter was injured in the docket in fact it was noted by the court that it was on the there is evidence this is work the notion that it was a document belonging to the defendant it's totally relevant to the document was an invasion of the under so there was some question as to whether the document was authenticated fact introduced at trial that was just what was the thought i'm just not knowing what was the fact introduced at trial simply that it was entered on the docket in this case and that was this case or some potential confusion because some of the proceedings ha that the government exhibit three is readily can be readily determined it can be really determine that it cannot reasonably be just cannot be reasonably disputed w would you think the instruction was then and there was your argument highly dependent on us reading this to not be any statement other than an instruction that government exhibit three is filed in the cases docket number ninety four but we would still argue that it didn't cause that if and any prejudice and there's a couple reasons for that because number one he immediately followed it with it's for you to decide which is proper to there's no objection and actually three at the point  at the jury heard the evidence about this scene that was entered on the docket he had already heard testimony that also had after his arrest confessed to owning the gun and said it was for his protection because he was involved in selling clothes and trading the effect of this statement was minimised as far as the policy behind for ten i think that's covered very clearly by this court's decision in time and he ate it cited in our brief  ten was to reject that position some sort of subjective belief by the defendant that he was in gauging a plea negotiations is not sufficient to allow it to be arguable for ten beyond that i have related submit that it's not clear that that's what he was trying to do why he wasn't talking to a prosecutor or anyone with the power to engage him in a go sheesh and to say i will accept responsibility if you give me that sentence he said i have always accepted my responsibility characterizing excusing his characterizing his behavior in the past and that's actually consistent again with the testimony that he told the police officer at the scene that he needed the gun for his protection  clarification came to my attention that the defendant's convictions under article ninety five are referred to as i've repeated assault in the p s r and as i've repeated battery in our brief and as assault slash battery and battery in the defendant's brief so just for this court's clarification they're all article ninety five there is no dispute as to what the conviction is just how we refer to it number two in our argument that his objection here is waived and when i point out the footnote that's actually in his motion to exclude the handwritten statement that's found in the appendix number thirty seven and it says the defendant's criminal history qualifies him for the sentencing enhancement found in one thousand and forty which exposes him to a government's admits that he has extensive criminal record you know several options for what qualifies as violent felonies but that the simplest path to a firm and in this case would be to take his two article five fifteen convictions which th shepherd documents to determine which one he was actually convicted of as in this case that it is enough that one of those modalities might qualify as a crime of violence and other tensions so the same would be true here the defendant's criminal history and then said he has at least three convictions where violent felonies and i and the defendant himself represented to the court that he did in fact have sufficient violent felonies to qualify and was this pretty johnson yes it centered on the points of the inaccurate and readily determined but the reality reality is the government we sent in a theory agent that describe for the jury the defense mounted a very assertive cross examination of the witnesses and they present two witnesses on their true that there was a statement of mr of also to the didn't know i mean if you go by that statue the way he sat you just had so i s