four officers surrounded the defendant interrogated him for a brief period of time and as a result of that interrogation later identification he was arrested for possession of illegal drugs and the officers involved in that inspected and storage a shed that was attached to mr james's apartment but was not accessible directly from the apartment or contention is  you you were describing where you believed the use of the bases for the floor in the search of the shed or whatever it was yes sir and you you referred to the main bail statute  to determine the extent of the waiver that it involved and you say that one of the main bail statute i understood you to be saying that under the name bail statute there should have been a the vehicle anyplace that he's in the main rod just sort of the definition of residence is a place where you sleep obviously the shed that was involved is not a direct part of the residence and it's not a place where he bones well if we fall if you read for all of the argument to a conclusion then the that a warrant could authorize or a a a waiver could authorize nothing but a search of the bedroom but i think that limiting more than i buy i'm suggesting roger all right well i i know it is but if you carry it to its conclusion it would seem to mean that the waiver covers only the bedroom which not even you know you don't claim living room on the one hand and a pertinent storage cause it sort of shed within the same building on the other where judge i think the line is drawn by the fact that the only access to that shed was and not through the apartment you had to exit the apartment ordered to enter the shed but there was not a door in between the apartment and the shed itself but suppose there was a mailbox downstairs an apartment building would you be able it's the mailbox for that residence right is not contained within the residence is certainly the tenant property or property right as to that mailbox but i certainly wouldn't conserve mailbox part of the residence would you consider th one lives way or one sleeps and i'm not trying to eliminate into the bedroom i'm talking about the residence in general the dividing line you rhonda from our perspective is when you get to something that is outside the res some previous preexisting precedent it's been violated talking release so if someone was to invite whether the use of tron resonant property of the ideas they are inviting them into the or into were ever piece of property to if they don't invite the agency to conduct a search of the shed that is not directly part of the apartment they were as mr james at the time and the agents prior to that search knew from the not thrilled with people being stay over in the back there for the argument but could you just watch the door so we don't have more people  would suggest to the court that under its precedents the argument may be completely waived on the last it's also i think been made clear that there is no precedent on this point and so the bishop quits conclusion that the shed was part of the residence that cannot be complained cannot be plain given the existing state of the law would also suggest that there was no error at all and in fact this decision was correct if you look at these this court's precedents on  structure is in the context of search warrants storage sheds exterior closets qantas shed in this case have routinely been deemed a permanent structures and therefore are part of the premises to be searched the test is  specifically assigned and therefore linked to this department the district court was correct in concluding that the bail conditions authorizing a search the residence would extend to that shed in this case  if there are no further questions on that point i would also just point out that the district court found in the alternative that the defendant had no reason why expectation of privacy and the shed given its location given th nature and layout of this building given the fact that it was unlocked and apparently not maintained and contain items that did not belong to the defendant and so that is an alternate basis on which this court could have found that mr quest and i all of the motion to suppress the contents of that shed turning briefly to the encounter with the defendant on the roadside on december th two thousand and sixteen the district court found three alternate bases to support that encounter i would submit to the court that the easiest route to a friends is to analyze it as a terry stop and that the officers had ample article girl suspicion at that point to believe that the defendant was a drug trafficker and known as king and that he was actively engaged in an ongoing trafficking enterprise that was had already passed him and pulled over to speak to the subject he was in the middle of the road i think he found support of that at the time the officer is exited their band to speak with the person walking down the road at that point they had identified him as  g again would call your honor that the record shows that one of the officers officer gagnon had seen him the day before water arrived for what he suspected to be a drug sale and so had laid eyes on him and had spoken to a drug user who identified the defendant the day before as came and then the record also establishes that mr james had a rather unique features and so the officer we're clear that they were able to identify him by the time they exited that they and they had identified him as analyze this is that terry stop and then the officer is acted very quickly to identify mr kay and in fact had not received information back about his identity out by the time they determined that he had drugs and his bag so there was no unlawful extension of the terry stop and this case and then finally if there are no other questions about the roadside encounter and we were just briefly argue as we didn't o the firearms and hence that in this case was proper the district court found by a preponderance that james and would have been aware of these guns given that they were found secreted in the exact same grade and the storage cabinet as the there rather made him feel safer that he was feeling unsafe in the wake of their seizure and i think on those facts it was reasonable for the court to assume that they were connected with the guy trapping offense this court has also said more than once we think that was a reasonable inference in this case and finally the application notes i just have three points advocation no see that sentencing guideline here indicate that when the gun was present the court should apply they have spent less it's clearly improbable but it's connected