unseeing because and i think the government agrees with the part of this there were it hands there were it hanson's added to the final guideline calculations in other words to the total offense level that the record did not support the place where the government and the defense agree is that with respect to obstruction of justice i believe the government's position is that because the district court did not make f sentencing judge did not make findings to support structures of justice because he essentially for what he did essential he looked at what he had in front of him which was a suppression motion was argued before he was assigned to the case there was a factual dispute about the placement of a garbage can and there was a set of witnesses for the government that said it was here there was a said what this is for the dissents said it was there the judge decided to and especially in light of the standards that were governing that motion to suppress she decided to credit the government testimony judge parker who was the leader assigned in the sentencing judge he looked at that he said that's right that she is a judge hope believe these government witnesses therefore i'm finding instruction of justice my position is it's there for not only did judge parker not make appropriate findings to support some kind of a perjury or action other than just dismiss just conflicting testimony but that the record doesn't even contain it and so it it at least with respect to obstruction of justice there there needs to be a rematch and it's it's not a harmless i think what we're really talking about in my opinion is this is the scope of the mandate first of all the government in my view well the government has argued a lack of preservation on two of the enhancements the first one is the  firearm the possession of firearms half of which is to be one point one b one and i can see that this this is the government's best argument for a failure to preserve what the record shows and to be quite frank with the court i cited in my in my brief the best i can the best i could locate in the trial court record as to what trial counsel did to preserve that issue  downward deviation as he calls it and yeah and i know that that is not the language of federal sentencing and i pointed out that there were issues with the experience level of that trial counsel but he  he kept calling these requests for removal of the enhancements request for downward deviations that the court probably saw in the sentencing hearing that he was telling the court that the guidelines are mandatory so that whatever can i interrupt yes micah's your honor concern about that argument is that even if we were to assume that despite scansion and some substance that you were making some objection to vironment hanson it seemed to in terms of the facts and some lines and well like your honor i believe that you know going back to this reasonable the standard the objection needs to be re so that the trial court has a reasonable opportunity to that occurred at the sentencing hearing you'll see that the when this objection about the farm hands move was raised albeit without the specific reference to the factual nexus the government was clear about what he was trying to do so he made robust arguments about the factual nexus and at the trial at the sentencing hearing there was a pretty good call up we about the placement of the firearms there was discussion about them being in the common area and the district court judge he decided that because of what was in the p s r and because they were in a common area of the house that he was going to go ahead and add the advancement and so that's why i take the position that it was everybody reasonably understood that there was an objection to that enhancement even if the trial counsel wasn't wording it exactly like he should a all part of the all parties understood it the court understood what was happening and it had a colloquy about that issue but i do understand your honor that that there are there are some issues there with preservation on that one as for the other one the government also argues a lack of preservation with respect to weaker because the the sentencing morat memorandum actually specifically argues that the house is primarily used as a residence does it make any difference you've got drugged at throughout the house in the attic in the immunize it from this and handsome it but it even citing the murphy decision which we discuss in our brief it still has to be a primary use for it and what isn't in the record here  i suppose if they make a hundred tons of of methamphetamine in the house and sell it across the street that has nothing to do with the house well your honor it's a factor is what i sa what i'm saying your honor is that you know you've got you've got drugs and things to the house what it looks like is this this was being used as a stash house there was some equipment it looked like in some of feel that that murphy does articulate the appropriate standards to to evaluate the to evaluate this and handsome it and i just you know present this to the court for consideration that based on the reality of the defendant's false statements we believe that the record supports those findings but they simply were not made and that is required so we agree that every man are necessary and they should and then the associate challenges the obstruction hanson and so i think the difference there is notable i would also note that at the sentencing hearing one different court with discussing variances the defense counsel i would also note that the fact that the united states briefed the application of the enhancements in its own sentencing is of no moment here the united states often briefs issues that defendants do not waive and that's a generally helpful practice that should not be discouraged or disincentive biased and so i think it's really more appropriate for the court to look to the defendant's own briefing and argument at that  sentencing hearing on that point i would also note that the the caliph way in the sentencing hearing about the guns was not on this issue of the special on to poor relationship between the guns and the drugs but with rather more generally about potential ownership of the drugs and part of a larger discussion of the codefendant in this case and that person's relationship to the evidence found in the home enhanced means because despite the fact that he did not raise these objections below the court still found facts sufficient of a matter of law for the incident but there will be other cases where the fact that a defendant  regardless of whether it's preserved assuming that we can do clean from the wreckage that there's not a sufficient showing made no no no i quite quite the opposite judge i'm arguing that that waiver is instead appropriate and this is are not open the view despite the fact that that the defendant's failure to object is what prevented the district court from further developing the necessary factual findings there so despite the fact that i believe waiver judge kelly mentioned the drugs were found throughout the house in the bedroom the kitchen with large storage with a large storage operation and the garage and manufacturing operation in the at it and the fact that the guns were found in the wanted room at the same time and the defendant's house should lead to an obvious conclusion that there was a spatial and temporal relationship between the guns the drugs and the defendant presence it at the same location of the drugs is all that's sufficient here in hall the drugs were not the guns were not even in the same house as the drugs they were in it was supposed to fill had it was a hunter and had few more facts to determine it in that instance but the proper way to handle this of course is that once the government has met its burden to show that there is this temporal and spatial relationship the burden then shifted to the defendant to show that it is clearly improbable that the guns were used in conjunction with drug trafficking potentially weapons and those that were clearly used in a hunting context would would not qualif it is that it if there were additional facts that might have led to a conclusion that was clearly probable that the guns in this instance were used in conjunction with drug trafficking then the defendant should have made that objection and the district court of a controlled substance substance for purposes of distribution qualifies under the enhanced meant there is no other way to interpret the facts in the record here as as other than storing drugs for the purposes of distribution with a large quantity of drugs they were apparently at one time concealed within tires and the after mentioned operation in the at made clear that th even if we only had this one moment in time when the search warrant was executed based on the level of sophistication and the quantity of drugs that we're dealing with but that is not actually all we have and this record two weeks prior to the t after being addressed in the government's response that there is absolutely no requirement in fall or elsewhere for the guns to be quote boiled cleaned and spotless  opinion where the court was dealing with with a variety of issues including evidentiary issues and in particular tools of the trade evidence and it is in that section of the opinion where the court goes into the  to be be overly concerned with the state of the guns in this instance and and the facts are would certainly be sufficient to support both advancements even if this court sees s down with the court if any furthe it's not that there had to have been drug transactions to qualify because again it's the totality of the circumstances and this court stated in murphy that it considers the frequency and number of drug sales occurring at the home the quantities of drugs  sold manufacture stored whether drug proceeds employees customers and tools of the trade are present and the significance of the premises to the drug venture and what i would just reiterate to the court is this record you have to make a lot of assumptions from it to say that there were that this was a primary purpose of this residence especially given that this individual was under surveillance council reference that two weeks before there was another trash hole that brought out methamphetamine i think we need to go back and look at the record on that in in the in the appellate appendix page twenty five which is part of the p are sort of the supplemental appendix there's a discussion of i think what counsel's talking about domingo's paris didn't have a different residence at the time that trash coal and so that discovery of methamphetamine at that other residents does not relate to this and whether this place where mr sara when he had moved in together was whether that residence was the primary location of the activity that argument now as for i thought i understood the government to be arguing perhaps that that what's going to happen on remand is that all these enhanced ones are going to apply anyway and that the records going to support them and that sounds to me like a like a harmless error type argument which which dellis from the supreme court for close as if we have  a if we have an error in the calculation of the offense level then we presumptively have to rebound it and your honors finally with respect to the firearm again the point of referencing hall house and i get to the point that judge kelly is making that is this pappy's old wall hanger rifle or hunting rifle or something like that but what we have here is just a reference to boxed up  develop the defenses they could have been developed is it or answer or your honor it's not this court's obligation to to develop the defenses a lot of what i'm arguing is that