substances ok does she have other prior convictions the qualifiers aggravated felony she does have other other prior convictions where they qualify as i agreed to felonies is something that was not briefed both either before the before the district court in the motions hearing those conviction documents were put into the motion opposition by the government there was no opportunity for us to pursue our own record it doesn't matter at all that of this court's law is that how the government presented the records in the district court at the motions hearing the district court could have considered them for the point of whether she was eligible for relief so i think the answer to that would be  discuss that point but the difference with this is a charge that i would point out is that not case the government presented the conviction documents in the in the district court at the motions hearing and that was not the case here so i think she had to in order to get the conviction that she did get you know there is we have a limited appeal here but there was a plane with a conviction except for the question of what happened to i don't i don't necessarily think that's the case your honor i think she could have been convicted had she been convicted had there been another i repeated felony and the aggravated felony so if we determine counsel that the record  shows that it is to another aggravated felony setting aside the question of the health and safety code section eleven three seventy eight what's the purpose of premiums again if there is an aggravated felony i think i do think that  there would be a limited utility to remount i would i would agree with that but again i would point that point out that these arguments weren't raised by the government or the district court and i think at least for example with respect to domestic violence conviction it's an aggravated felony it's a crime of violence at least under some of the court's precedents requires the use of force and when you say at least under some of i mean if you if you know something i don't know i'd like to hear it but i think that's a done deal is there some reason to question which was in two thousand and twelve which predates many of those developments so might my reading of this court's law was that arguments based on divisibility and mouth those would not be proper in this procedural context so this court's precedents allowed for subsequent developments a lot to be considered as to whether the immigration judge properly advised detaining i would certainly make those arguments but my reading of the courts of law at this point is that arguments were closed and we need to rely on the the law at the time the rule proceedings like to move on to addressing the the issue with the two thousand and eight conviction that was raised in  it's not just viewed that this two thousand a conviction is not categorically nine hundred felony but has been the appeal is whether using the modified categorical prochoice the government has met its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that there is a link between think this court's held that it's the government's burden to show that link by clear and convincing evidence and the court's also held that where there is ambiguity and doubt this court relies on the doll which said that there should be something more a statement that this this requirements the police to the offense charge there's no need for a leave of quirk or approval of the prosecutor if it's not to the offense charge the court and the prosecutor must prove that's what happened in this case  the prosecutor signed off on the plea form and there's a notation in the minutes that this plea was entered by a leave of court so the only logical conclusion in my view is that because levy was leave was granted and because the da approved this there must have been some change it couldn't have been a plea to the offense charge there must have been something different and i think we try to figure out what was that plea to we look at the police which describes the offense or maims it as possession of a controlled substance generally without specifying methamphetamine and i might i would submit that that is the most likely amendment that was made in this case or change was made in this case you want to reserve some time yes your hon morning your honor is may it please the court actually all for the united states starting with the court started boost as it would for close relief in this case because a defendant is not plausibly eligible for a form of relief that is it legal to provide to him i can provide the the the domestic violence conviction never came up in the immigration court is that right but your honor i actually don't know the answer that question it was not charged i do not recall whether it was discussed during the hearing i think it was not but without the transcript in front of me i'm not well there's that make any difference in other words in order is there a case law specifically saying that if there is an aggravated felony that we now know about but that we don't have any reason to think the immigration court nowhere could have known about that that precludes possible really yes your honor it does not matter whether something was before the immigration judge at the time again i don't have a list of cases at the at the tip of my tongue right now in december i argued a case before a judge when called itself that the sentence imposed was over one year and in the plea agreement factual basis and appearance factual basis it was also determined at sentencing to be an aggravated felony so this was discussed before the court in numerous phases turning to the merits of defendant's actual challenge here i think in the end defendant's contention boils down to sort of a nihilistic view of california law that any plea under age fifty nine can't be trusted that in light of people the west other pleas can't be trusted that in the case where there is a document indicating a plea to the name of the statute rather than to specifically that count that that can't be trusted and none of those propositions are supported by this court's law defendant mischaracterizes eight fifty nine a a defense counsel said today eight fifty nine a just controls the pre primary indict pre primary hearing pardon me please before a magistrate judge in state court if you look at the eight fifty nine a form in this record in fact there are several bot check boxes that are specific only to eight fifty nine please this is an e r forty seven boxes for a b and five g b and they all just relate to waivers of the right to have a plea taken by a superior court judge they have nothing to do with pleading to a lesser offense and that eight fifty nine a theoretically would allow a plea to a lesser offense that's exactly the same as what people the west allows that's no different from any plea in california state court but this is a lesser offense nobody's saying that that's exactly right there's no this that's not even what's going on here defendant didn't plead to a lesser offense defendant pleaded to exactly what was charged and i would actually emphasize the doll here because in prior cases this court ha analyzed looking for exactly that kind of issue there was evidence that there was a west plea involved the factual basis indicated people v west here there's nothing like that and so it doesn't stand on the same ground as cases like the doll and  laura where there was a fact on which some doubt could gain traction and in the absence of any evidence of a modification just the legal possibility of a modification this court has repeatedly rejected defendant final paragraph of that opinion the court concluded that in the absence of some evidence that there was a west plea that that was not enough to create doubt and similarly in the reply brief defendant has cited these briefs from state court decisions indicating what state practitioners may do and that's outside the record but what they may do in some case doesn't indicate what happened here and in fact what happened here is exactly what this court has repeatedly found sufficient which is the defendant pleaded to a count that alleged a particular controlled substance and there's nothing ambiguous and the record and finally that defendant's plea form simply recited the generic title of the statute only eleven three seventy eight that also makes no difference this court has jimenez the records indicated the defendant pleaded to quote narcotic controlled substance for sale this is identical this is the name of the statute that's why it's listed that way and that's what well yes but if you didn't have the is this court's cases have repeatedly found that this is enough and finally just to rebut what i see is the overall philosophy of defendants complaint this part of defendants appeal this court has not adopted a nihilistic view of california law  snellen berger the court when the court emphasized it sort of assumed the reliability of minute orders in coron auto the court assumed the reliability of electronic docking dockets and that's what we have here in fact we have an extremely comprehensive electronic docket that shows the entire history of this case and shows no evidence of any modification and so this court this case is totally unlike the doll and medina lara there was evidence there of some modification and that's exactly what's missing here if just briefly here on ars with respect to the point about what was concluded at sentencing the issue there was not whether it was an aggravated felony it was simply whether it was a crime of violence under the guidelines of a lead to the sixteen level and how it's meant and i think that's all the district court decided at that point there was also a point raised about whether this is a lesser included offense or not i don't think the argument is that there was a change from possession of the methamphetamines obsession of a controlled substance a lesser included a certain offense i do think it's a reasonably related offense under west i think pleas to reasonably related offenses are allowed and i think that would explain why leave of court and approval of the district attorney was necessary