conference would not admit his involvement in the robbery but prolonged questioning applied psychological pressure on him he broke down and made incriminating now our st argument in this respect is that the officer sanchez in prison implicitly threatened to tell the judge the pumpkin's was not cooperating with is a violation of this court's opinion harrison in which the agent or officer asked would it be better if the judge were told that you cooperated or had not cooperated well just to read it if we're looking at that is my determination of that is that for clear error of you because the district court found that it wasn't what you're arguing i'm sorry i don't understand what you're suggesting that somehow this was compulsive torrie on your client that it what was said there was compelling it was something that they shouldn't do but th the so do i only deference to the district court well the district court if i'm understanding what the court is asking the district court said although the court is mindful of the possible implications of the agent statements the agent did not say he would inform the judge or defendant not cooperate so that as i understand it is the basis of the court's denial and the more i understand but nonetheless he made a determination that as far as he question please ok why only deference to the district court or do or that testimony knows what the situation is went through on the motion to suppress and decided hey this was a this was a compuls story at all it wasn't that kind of a cough kind of a comment to io deference to that my argument would be that it's do no good because he applied the wrong standard if it were if it were the correct standard it would be a  seems not to be considering the possible implications he's also saying his factual finding is the agent did not say he would inform the judge has been a did not cooperate and my point is that this court's decisions in harris case ok well i i would disagree because the court seems to be requiring the agent to explicitly form the judge and that's not what happened in harrison and well but i just think that's an explanation of worry came out in the end result of wasn't of applying the very standard you want to go by he said i've looked at this and he didn't say what i think he should have said in this situation ask you one more question that goes to the issue of harmless error i think you know i don't know what it was in the statement that he actually made that hurt him because because the only real issue in the case for use a shorthand this knowledge that it was a better use of a gun was foreseeable or whether he was aware of it he did not admit to that that was the only thing in which he basically gave an  potoroo statement and i think that was helpful to him everything that he admitted to was overwhelmingly established by the surveillance by the by the communications between him and those of his confederates who were in the bank and the g p s which showed him in front of a bank just before the robbery and leaving the back right after the one thing that he did not say and that was the critical issue in the case that i signed the stand from reading your briefs was that he was a that the use of the gun was foreseeable to him he denied that and then a fact by the admission of this evidence you're getting in a centrally his defense he was that was exposed to tory evidence that you couldn't have even gotten in had the government's not foolishly offered the confession because the way they try cases is to throw everything in the kitchen sink before the jury but shame on them but i don't see how it hurt you well i think one of the bases of harmless error is the fact that the government did that confession and in fact you were helped by it because you could not otherwise have got matic sculp atory evidence and you didn't you didn't and when and when you tried this case on a stipulated stipulated fact and i stipulated testimony rather his testimony was not included in the stipulation so we were able to do by by by the confession i know there was no  disproportionate impact on the sentence and in this case the beagle didn't then the trial judge say he was actually applying that's the you know i don't remember that he said he was applying a clear and ok well let me i think that the fact that there's an armed bank robbery is not standard for the enhancement well but the budget but just a minute there's no question your client didn't use the firearm so one asked look at section one b one point three b and eleven looks at section one one point three b and one looks at what it says that it seems to me ok we disagree with the court's conclusion the district court has to make particularize findings about what our client agreed to are all we have is the cooperative testimony that our client had a gun and handed it and the same gun was in the hands  well if you look at one point one b one point three you have to find within the scope of joining undertaken criminal activity and further acts of that activity and now are coming to the three reasonably foreseeable in connection with the activity that occurs that the commission of the offense of conviction and preparation that of fans or in the course of attempting to avoid detention or responsibility for that of fans that's what the got accounts god to trade off that's right your honor and i would focus on the st one it has to be in the scope of the gent rightly undertake an activity the district court has to make particularized findings what my client specifically agreed to and i didn't want to before i miss the point that the court said that the rd party saw no had to be involved and that's not the case in fact the testimony of miss lester says that she didn't realize until she was in the vault room that she didn't have the key there for all of my client was not there at that time so what he knew was what she knew before entering the vault room was that they could get in and get out as the district court found without involving any rd parties and lesser any further questions i see now that fo statement made in harrison the district court found that those statements are different and that's now reviewing for clear is just ms recognized nd even if it rose single engine present with the defendant is the district court noted that egypt was friendly cordial grew out the offended if the court reviews the video and audio from the interview the defendant is clearly aware throughout of what's happening he clearly goes back and forth with the agent back to two point the agent said i'm getting pulled out earlier indicating he has to says no no no please stay i want to keep talking experienced in the criminal justice system he had to have been adult convictions to juvenile conviction and based on all of these facts present the court should find that this was not an involuntary confession or the statements were not involuntary but is judge korman to recognize even the court doesn't even need to reach the here is an issue because this is a clear case in which the statements were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the evidence in the record responsibility for that offense under those facts alone it would have been truly anomalous for the not to have been found responsible for the firearm but moreover there was and they install evidence in the records showing defendant's knowledge of a firearm including the defendant provided on to the gunman on the morning of the robbery then it was a hub for the robbery the connection point between  and potentially the same requirements under pinkerton in the two cases cited in the government's twenty g letter need to show both under the scope and reasonably foreseeable here both are clearly met the defendant  but she specifically questions this idea that could not have abbott without the involvement of the rd party by saying that lady didn't even know that that was going to be a problem so she was  on the wrong standard which is the standard of knowledge in miami that's not the standard that the government needs to show it's a much lower bar simply that it was reasonably were seeable which is why the question is simply  there was michelle bernard and mohammed and to heal who were both held on their knees at gunpoint during the robbery and certainly the defendant that was foreseeable to the defendant who provided the firearm and that was the likely conclusion this was at the time armed robbery of a crowded bank during business hours it was again seeking even the facts except independent gloss on the facts all that's needed is i don't think the court needs to get into the specific question of what you know what was discussed ahead of time and its heels role because all this has recently foreseeability and that the state of the youth really clear in the s so having already been convicted of that higher bar it was a lot of conclusion and sentencing that the court would find the firearm here as well but the court also has imposed evidence in the record based on that and role at the center of this i'd certainly agree with the court that was unnecessary it's serious it came about the stipulated facts that were presented to the core were the result of significant back and forth in the goshi asian between the if they both cases say there are no circumstances under which the law enforcement may make those comments so we disagree that you have to do to tell the the circumstances review in those cases the now let me turn to the firearm and the government is focusing on court in the sensing says i'm not going to impose restraint because in my view what the agreement was here the plan was that he would get in there iris would take him to the vault and they would get out without anyone else seeing them that's what if says that i cannot affirm the district court on any grounds supported by the record even if it differed from the rationale of the district court why would that not be a political er well because i don't think there is there is a basis for me and handsome and i don't think there is any basis for if you don't think there's any basis for saying based on this record that the defendant gave sessions the gu consequence of what was going to happen will i don't think logical consequences you know i think there has to be an agreement and particularize findings as to that agreement well what i mean the agreement there's no question there was an agreement there's no question as to what they green meant i mean you were just arguing about what the agreement was the prosecutor said it was for you take that's got a new deal was it whatever you have to because this too on the district court finding that the plan was to get in and get out and what the prosecutor argued at sentencing was that the purpose of the gun was for the cameras so that when iris went sessions into the bottom she would just bring your friend in to the bottom and handing him the money gave him the gun because it was obviously to my mind the possibility that he would have to use it and that was foreseeable well you know i think i've set forth my position but there's one point i want to make before my time runs out and that is that there is a difference between a finding of our bank robbery and this enhanced matter and it showed up in the in the twenty eight dollars jail letter that the prosecutors citing cases just because there's our bank robbery does not necessarily say that this