case my understanding is that the supreme court case that later the case that laid this out more completely came after the district court's hearing is that correct that's correct is this a case where it would need to not be necessarily reversed but remain and did so the district court could conduct the hearing and make findings that would be consistent it does appear to be that way i think were very much parallel to the case in williams williams had the similar case why wasn't the her harmless some of the evidence at trial i think the error was not harmless because the main thing that was here is mr b another statements they went to the heart of the case i think williams itself went through a harmless ne analysis and in williams it was also the defendant's statements that were introduced later you have twenty five thousand designer labels which is not the average thing that wind brings across the border and then you have the co i think williams and also want to go through that the defendant's statements have a very profound impact on the jury the jury could have made the determination on his statements alone and to say that they ignored those and only looked to the other evidence presented is is not for us a term i mean it's the government's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this evidence would not have impacted the verdict i think here mr b and i not only did not just give some mouth you heard mr b and others own statements when he came to the primary instruction area you heard it when he told the agents and so i think in the government using at it they themselves lend again that's more important and i don't think that the error here was harmless and it should be reminded some of the court can further determine if there was deliberate ness and whether the second set of the first set of miranda warnings were what else you want to talk to us about swine i think the other issue well i do want to stress that i think here although there are objective factors that should be reminded the second issue we have this morning is whether the court commercial the government's position here is that no reversal or re man business area because this is a case where there was simply overwhelming evidence against mr b in a way but such that any additional trial is going to result in he made in a year and his regular job which was part of the testimony and after the state and then came back six days later and he had several recorded and mr stokes god knows testimony was corroborated by other documentary evidence such as telephone records and bank records and hotel records and the like so you know the delivery and the recorded phone calls he made to the supplier and it wasn't funny if i interrupt just a moment he would have been able to make that control delivery for the government which resulted in  days later says is that this plea voluntary this man made a definitive choice is here because even when he came back six days later he was like he was represented by a lawyer said you've got a deal with the government you've got to come forward and  people who manufactured them meanwhile the defendant was deliberately not only for ocado but for many other people for different manufactures he was transporting labels for different suppliers argument made in then even though there could be that evidence that the judge seemed to be comparing him solely to sell gado and in the findings well and the question then is whether the judge of those other players at the time he was going to defend well and he was certainly discussed sentencing and i think that if one is quite correct in saying there are no findings on that what significance is that well i think that the court there you know i know that the charges they're required to make findings but there is their findings i don't think need to be quite i don't think the law requires quite that degree think we have an argument and thank you will have a  contacted him then told mr b and i got the labels are ready for you manufacturing labels i don't think that says anything more about his role that it wasn't mine or in this case and then the government's comment regarding him that he was receiving a percentage of this i think is merely an assumption on the government's part there is no evidence in the record that mr the another was in fact receiving a cut or a larger percentage he was just a calculation that the government figures based on what his income was and what the increase in price was there was no evidence for mr sam got to whether mr b another was getting