well he was in a single interview there were two admissions in that interview and he admitted ownership of some of the items seized during the during the execution of that yes they did you really found out mr mendoza had admitted to that based on that evidence that that he had admitted to the other items that were found around the house now the reason why we are basically asked you you were you were asking for a four point reduction for a minor role in the offense is a correct that's correct that as i read the sentencing transcript although you asked that the judge doesn't seem to say a word about it is that are you are you arguing that that was a put a procedural on resolves for the state of the judge despite the fact although defense counsel specifically asked for a minor rule adjustment which could mean a four point reduction in the total offense level the judge doesn't seem to say a word about that and  struction of justice and hands me he made a specific finding that mr mean it was a lie when he indicated that he didn't know what the context what were the contents of the back and if if that was all that was a lie he took the stand he said i don't know what the contents of the backpack was the jury in fact found that he did and that he has as all those items all those up all the contraband into back then there is no indication that he would have a minor role because the items found in the backpack were the most dangerous weapon the kel tec rifle that was loaded was found in the backpack forty vials of filled with crack cocaine were found in the backpack so implicitly  government in this case presented ample evidence that mr mendoza did in fact knowingly possess all the contraband found in this case let's start with the fact that he was found in the room where that backpack was found that contained a loaded shoes that he in fact admitted when he took the stand were his there were empty vials that were identical to those that were filled with a crack cocaine in the backpack in addition the backpack contained a toothbrush indicating that it would be long to an overnight guest such as mr mendoza and in addition it wasn't just his presence in the room but he had made himself comfortable in the room all of his stuff was in the room his sneakers were at the foot of the bed his pants for folded neatly on a table he had his washers necklace and percocet pills all neatly put on a dresser so he had made himself comfortable in this room in addition to the room was clearly a toddler's room everything other than mr mendoza as stuff was clothes and toys that were perch a into a one to two year old and so it was much more reasonable for the jury to infer that that backpack belonged to mr meadows and he had brought it as an overnight guest and that his the kids own parents will be loaded rifle right in there in their own toddler's room and in addition to that he when he testified he put forth a lot of facts that he was very close to mr baez and  the people the owners of the residence he had stayed over numerous times he had known them since high school in fact he was dating miss going on is nice and he would meet up with her often at the residence and he would stay over so it wasn't the  time that he was stayed over and he felt so comfortable in their house that he had actually smoked marijuana in their living room that same day and that's all without even looking at his admissions add to that the fact that both p r p officer which would indicate that he admitted to all of this stuff i understand that mr mendoza has a separate interpretation he put forth that interpretation to the jury and the jury rejected it and it's not this court's role to nd guess that credibility determination of the jury  so at this point i'd like to pause to see if the court has any questions if not we would rest on our brief and ask that the district court's judgment and sentence be affirmed thank you