section twenty two fifty five motion the first issues involves ineffective assistance of counsel and there are two main subjects used to that involving search and seizure issues and an allegation that mr rich  trial attorney did not argue effectively drug quantities at sentencing the second issue is a brady versus maryland issue and the third issue on which a court certificate of appeal ability was not granted by the district just just just very briefly there i cited burton versus washington which the u s supreme court granted sarah cherry for that was decided against mr burton on a jurisdiction so i wanted to update the citation on that and also and also mention cunningham versus california and i'll leave it at that ok the search and seizure issue taint there there  sub issues to that and the main issue that i'd like to address involves the taint issue there the the court found that the illegal the initial entry into the east seventeenth  think there's two factual matters which involve the taint first is this boilerplate attachment a type of type of thing i think my able counsel mr pomeroy a trial show that this this attachment had been attached to other search warrants in the same case and we've conceded that there is sufficient evidence in the district court to find this is a generic boilerplate type thing we still maintain the argument that the way it was presented to the district court involved detain but the court ruled against us but i think the closer question involves paragraph forty seven of the af that paragraph states that on and this is fine detective it's trying to remember how to pronounce his name i think it's cook detective cook on the twenty ninth of april i responded to the seventeenth that residence at the residence i contacted heather horner who told me don was not at home at the moment but did acknowledge his living there and heather allowed me to walk through and sure that d again in the next section that i want to address this morning in the probable cause that there was only a pretty tenuous information in the affidavit that doll richie that donald richie was connected to the  seventeenth avenue residence and that illegal illegal activity was happening at that residence so i think the independent source doctrine has two parts of it the first part is the question of under molder as this court noted which is whether the information obtained in a legal search would prompt the officer to get the search warrant initially ok if it would if it prompted search for the officer to get the search warrant then that's not an independent source but there's a second part of it and that's whether the information observed or tainted the illegal search by codefendant adam hankins who gave information about that's included in the search warrant pretty extensive information and in that he did say that on which you lived and and manufactured methamphetamine at that residen corroboration but our argument was that it was stale it doesn't it doesn't have time place or school when where at that residence and and of course this list of this is a criminal mill you just inform whether there was a tactical reason for failing to request an evidentiary hearing we argued that there was this was a case where the tail of of relevant conduct the wag the was contacted at the executive suites hotel with ten point eight grams and i just lost them from there an argument son of ineffective assistance on that the brady issue is our last issue  paragraph forty seven of the search warrant application that miss warner stated that donald ritchie did not live or was not you know present at the seventeenth avenue  sufficient to bear the government's burden but the conversation that occurred before the request tenser the residence is what hearing wish to again test mr hankins credibility and his church home points out the court had opportunity to evaluate mr hankins credibility found him credible and nothing had my conclusion is that we just did not get that stuff dave mentor were not aware of it i have no explanation of why it was not produced believe me i wish find it in the files and the people who did try the case do not recall seeing it so it's regrettable inadvertent they not provided such as the court district court concluded safely it was a harmless error the district court's findings that the information in that statement was readily available to know well a magistrate judge he did find that the evidence of that was with phil newton the result not reasonable probability of a different result of trial correct that it would not s in and analyzing the situation they reached the conclusion that there was no brady file ation so that's even if we were to you know i mean if the how about combining them but it makes it doubly that's the record below that it wasn't produced and the court there's three issues to brady there's favorable and they found that it was favorable suppressed and it was found to be suppressed now the materiality might have been produced to a public defender another case does not meet that doctor and and we would argue that the materiality question wasn't reached by the district court because of the shortstop based on the schaefer case and i don't know what the courts i filed objections to it you know determination so i i would it would have to be remanded i believe to the district court if this court finds that the shortstop doctrine does