the court there you can see the part of course it's not surprising because you're talking about administrative things you're talking about a reference you're talking about a whole series of different things besides prior convictions that can convictions these are convictions with things with either one he pled guilty or through a jury has found him has found him guilty so we've had jury involvement or court involvement previously now why is consideration of those questions questions for the if for example we have we have guidelines that provide that if you can get convicted of a certain offense your guideline range is adjusted for example if you look to the firearms offenses that are a prime example life like this or he is not no longer that was another part of his life that was another part and it is up to the jury at this point to make that decision as far as whether or not whether or not that individual for a one point three and it's not about what you can use bait they say here let's start there that's why i wanted to find out where you're coming from for a one point three a one talks about seriousness and likelihood is that what you're thinking the jury is and and and the government have pointed out i mean i had done it to preserve you know this whole argument and then blakely came out and clearly is now we've had an ally and i you know the ninth circuit has you know for whatever purposes may of the standard for upper departure i agree with that and that's your argument that that's clear my argument but my argument goes further than that you know it goes far as a rematch when you looking at the factors that are included in point three and the factors in this case that the government's moves for the bases of the up with the posture they are factors other than prior convictions for example under forty one point three in his prior similar adult criminal conduct not resulting were juvenile prior to that at a candidate and he also had comedian convictions as well the reason i bring that up your honor of going back to the definition of what a prior conviction when we look at what a prior jury trial the standard of proof and we stuck dealing with foreign convictions as well we've run into those same issues even in a country like canada for the even when we look at canada and we look at their charter and you we're now waiting to see whether we're going to have to live with that now if we do live with that i'm not too sure how far that's going to go and i understand that's why i asked the question can we stay on this record that the fact that he had the canadian connections and the u s connections takes it completely out didn't happen and i'm sure he doesn't have to find it they are in the case the question is though what do you make of that it's a little bit to my mind like the question that a death penalty surely is have asked here's this person's record what is the probability that they'll commit future violent crimes we've had to a jury in the future dangerousness so why wouldn't we similarly in this kind of case if this line of reasoning is applying to go you get an extra ten years which i don't see here unless i've missed something it seems to me we still got to wait and see what they do in the first half they we don't know what's going to happen to our case we've decided my stance at least at the current time  are going to force us to go and say you shouldn't increase because good sides to it i don't i don't we can answer that