convictions his guilty plea to distribution of cocaine in this appeal the accounts of nits that the evidence presented to the sentencing court should have let that court to not sentence the defendant within the m to the mandatory minimum rather he should have received a sentencing guideline sentence because he was eligible for the safety valve treatment as i pointed out in the briefs he wanted the mandatory minimum army he wanted the mandatory the district court that if he had been sentenced within the guidelines your honour's had made a significant difference in his sentence what is the guidelines estimate at level twenty that apply to whether a defendant is eligible for guidelines eligible for the safety valve the court found in the government agreed in the lower court that the first  of the factors had been met that there was he wasn't a ringleader or leader organizer of the conspiracy there was no threat of it's or use of violence with the defendants part no one was there's no government and to the courts prior to the sentencing in the case and i would submit that the evidence and evidence shows and the court applies a clear standard of review which is that if the record shows that there was a  factual basis for the court's finding that he wasn't eligible for the safety valve or looking at the entire case looking at everything that's presented as this court is to find that there was a on the state a clear mistake made by the sentencing court then the only finding in my view your honor solely went to the question of why he came involved in the conspiracy the district court said that he didn't tell nothing about his own personal involvement or how he when he was arrested which is the primary evidence that was before the district court and we also have what he stated in this revised change of the factual basis of his change of plea where he described that he had had an accident while on not to know what was in the brig and of course that incredible he said when he was going to kansas to get thirty rather than delivering drugs and that was incredible so i mean there's a lot of theories that he didn't seem to pursue it and i don't know why he didn't why he didn't sit down after his initial arrest and then unload on the on the office about what this was all about w plea guilty in seat and a shifty valve adjustment well i believe your honor that the lower court's credibility finding was looking at the entire body of our call evidence that was presented to the court was simply incorrect mr appellant in the matter when he was debriefed by the agents told them that he was delivering cocaine he told them that he was delivering drug money that came from the sales of the cocaine large amounts of it but didn't show who recruited him injury how became involved he denied being paid any money he claimed not to know what was in the break i mean why did he not develop your honor's reading of what the evidence was if you look both at what he said to the agents as well as what he said was revised factual basis where he specifically said that i was involved in the littering cocaine in the denver area i was involved in taking other members of the conspiracy from place to place while they were delivering cocaine at the point time that he say i wasn't involved in the conspiracy or that i wasn't involved in delivering cocaine this one statement about i don't know what was in some bricks was then i guess i would say contradicted by him when he says in other points during the debriefing by the agents that he was delivering cocaine and when he said in there can't avoid that question but i don't think it is it important in the overall scheme of the overall circumstances of this case he told the the british agents that as i said again everybody except with her is back he needed to make some money in order to because he wasn't getting money from his work anymore the only statement i want to take up on something you said your honor was that he never said i wasn't making any money aside for a moment that doesn't mean that he was denying that he ever had any money the agents knew found ten thousand dollars in where he lived when they searched the place so i don't think it's correctly he did was in front of him got involved became involved in the conspiracy and that was in my view the primary issue that the judge found a problem i would submit if you look at the entire body of cases that are before the court i guess i would just maintain my position the appellant's position is that looking at the entire case the court should not have found and i believe this court should reverse for the question of the small question i would like to see the insignificant question of how this particular defendant became involved in the conspiracy i just think it's ultimately in significant issue with regard to the entire matter but he never said that joe dokes is the ringleader or that sam smith was also involved in this and he didn't give any information about the overall conspiracy i recently disagree and he that he had provided all that he had and the court gave a few what he called a few examples the defendant avoided responding to questions concerning who recruited him into the conspiracy instead he said that he had injured his back and felt as though he had no choice the defendant denied that he was getting paid work which the court found to be implausible the defendant claimed that he wasn't sure what was in the bricks that he was transporting which the court found to be incredible the defendant claimed that he made overnight trips to kansas to get there before it's back which the court found to be implausible in some district court found that while the defendant was truthful a number of things he was not truthful in all things and this finding is amply supported by the record repeatedly and at length the interviewing officers had to resort to leading questions to pull information from the defendant even information they already knew and the defendant refused to meet with agents for a formal briefing t follow up on gaps in this post arrest interview or so on the face with it the district court heard the evidence made the findings and we can drill down on the change plea hearing transcript and that occurred that was brought out of a change of plea hearing then meaningfully suppleness post arrest interview now he asked to speak with the officers again and let him question yes they did they did ask you and this that when the government doesn't recommend a safety valve defendant needs to put on evidence at the sentencing hearing meet this burden of showing that he truthfully and fully disclose everything he knew and to rebut government claims to the contrary and here the defense anything more for medical reasons or whatever and in fact when the death defending himself spoke to the court he said he accepted responsibility apologize and he sat down so i think this went fairly clean and straightforward that the defendant did not give everything he knew an opportunity to do so declined to do so and then there was nothing further offered at the sentencing hearing you say it is two different conditions and it's not clear which one is hanging its hat on but again there were opportunities to do this and at a minimum at the sentencing hearing could have brought in a medical expert to say look this is the situation this is why he was unable to tell you particular questions and we would ask that you refer thank you very much the only evidence there considered presented to it was not evidence but oral argument by the attorney for the defendant in the case and some statements that the defendant had made to the probation officer required for safety valve treatment and we just had a separate set of statements and then the court remarked that counsel's argument to the court for sentencing certainly wasn't evidence either so from those facts recommendation from the right which is the right yes but right but what i was faced with was that progeny of any kind of evidence whatsoever that it could reasonably rely on to refer to your position seems to be that because your client didn't put on any other evidence that the government must have to put on evidence to show what he didn't know or didn't tell them that he knew