turn to the next case united states versus morning your honor may please the court my name is patrick joyce i represent chad recall who is the appellant in this case he was the defendant below the issue before the court is whether or not the district court committed this greece mr hall was incarcerated at the time right around the time i think that the the government filed their reply he had just been released i had not spoken in to until just recently but he has been released and i and i have reviewed the williams case judge and i realize that that's a high bar for me to scale i've researched it and i've jeopardises i'm trying to find some way around it and i do think there is some language judge in williams that that would permit the court to get to the merits of this appeal the language is that if the appellant if the court can grant any effectual leaf to a prevailing party calculate the guy lives the way i have requested the guideline range would be beef between ten and sixteen months what will happen in that situation is if the court reset and says mr hall there's a good chance he would get a sense of less than one year well we do know and not specifically and controlled substances cases but in some cases with immigration getting a year or less or maybe getting a no jail time may have an impact upon whether or not that makes him removable and i think when the word says any actual east prevailing party i think that might be some effectual least to mr hall if the court were to grant his appeal made an argument why isn't that remote and speculative well your honor i would suggest that it's what we know about in terms of immigration and what we know about removal proceedings the fact is that while his disappearance before an immigration judge is imminent it's going to occur it's not what we used the word remote it may be that it may never happen or the reality is he will appear in immigration court we do know that and so therefore i don't believe that this particular situation presents a remote possibility wanted to address the merits thank you judge  again we've asked the court to rule to address the issue whether that the district court has committed procedural error in calculating an improper guideline range the courts review the calculation novo with view towards the factual findings to see to determine whether or not there was clear error what happened in this case is there was a the use of two different  r to find that an unrelated event caused mr hall's based guideline level to be raised from twelve to sixteen it's important to understand the facts of the case on november th of two thousand and eighteen mr hall is without some people outside of his building at one thirty in the morning it's a friday morning he's drinking and police who decide that there is some warrants it's  no money on him at all they arrested him based on this warrant at the time of the arrest he had about two point seven grams of crack cocaine on him and also a fire actually serving a customer he's arrested he has a small amount he has one point five grams of cocaine on him but he was observed serving an individual he's also arrested with a significant amount of money  and in that case the case was that particular count was given to the jury and the jury acquitted mr hall of either having not possessed those drugs or not having possessed those drugs with the intent to sell it's never a prosecution in that case and in fact that count was never before the jury however at sentencing the district court found that there had been a st of all the district court went to to do one point one in but involving the gun it has been and i think your honor is that completely inappropriate here because it would be that the person would have to possess the weapon during the commission of the offense and in this particular event where mr hall was in front of his house at one forty five in the morning whether or not this was relevant conduct to the conduct of for which he was convicted by the jury and i criminal activity in the in the case where he was convicted mr hall was selling drugs where the court found relevant conduct there's no such sale and i think the courts have gone to the point where maybe they say any time someone who's convicted of drugs has drugs that must be relevant content but i would suggest that the drugs are packaged in a way that was clear he was going to sell them well just there were small packages but i don't know that that's clear someone works at a liquor store and it's friday night and on their way home they decide they're going to bring three bottles of bourbon with them for the week and they stop off and they're on their way home and just before they go upstairs they run into some friends it doesn't necessarily mean you're going to sell that bourbon when he's not at the section a to a high and sub i i anyhow and convicted who and that's having committed or who and that's committing acts which constitute the essential elements of a violation of or conspiracy or attempt to by a lake any law or regulation of a state the united states or  foreign countries relating to a controlled substance as a final section it'll to a title twenty one  now there are some exceptions to so there actually no exceptions to someone who someone who had been who had violated a controlled  included for the calculation the guidelines so long ass the criminal activity is part of the same course of conduct as the offense of conviction here there is ample support in the record of the district court did not clearly err in finding generally hanging out until he suddenly walked across the street and met with a two buyers outside of another building down the block from there you want twenty five park where unlike here the transactions involved different types of drugs different coconspirators or greater separations in time of conduct and defense also argues that in addition to the inclusion of the drug amounts that was that were found on the defendant on a permit there isn't twenty in the gun that was spent on the defendant should not have trees office when they went back into the grand jury declined to prosecute that event i think it's worth noting that on the february th event mr hall was acquitted the district court and in some sense circuit courts use the street events from afar but on on the street and sometimes the language is is i think somewhat indicative of not necessarily understanding what is going on on the street there are many cases which use six circular logic which basically say drug a weapon is a tool for the drug use and then they say well if someone had  weapon it must mean there are drugs and in this case clearly the drugs were found in a fanny pack with the weapon but the point is we know from the plethora of nine hundred and twenty four g cases in this district many people have guns and have nothing to do with drug do and just because it's found in the same location i suggest does not mean that in fact it was in furtherance of a drug event