rance before the court we have multiple issues before i four re into the issues i think that are important i know the court is that our colleagues in briefs instance if the court has any questions before i move forward  got live as regards set sentencing also understanding that the twenty four months that was d held is being consecutive to mr morton sentence sentencing what's her what's our sarap you on that issue section of the law and to go further judge the twenty four months that the lower court tecton consecutively to the sentence of mr d morton since that time mr morton has gone to trial on that issue and was acquitted earlier this year so that being said judge if there's more reason and in there's more background as a regards or as relates to  complaint is that the district judge didn't reference seventy point one three outs but some point seven b one point three s certainly doesn't favor you it it actually would have supported his decision to make these basically what the cases say as i understand it and from back when i was a district judge is that if you've just sentenced somebody on the underlying violation that was the predicate for the violation supervised release all the reasons that you state in in connection with the with what i'll call the main sentence that can be deemed to also apply to the decision to be concurrent or consecutive you don't need to repeat it so what am i missing what was being sent to me to be very frank with the court i mean i think there is a defendant at the last minute that the review of the video and it and i have to admit it was very graphic and would show but that being said going forward and understanding that the the result of the case as it opportunity to rebut and or challenge what was going on on the video may have been a different result that being said that's where we believe that the point here or as regards  client simply because he had left one hotel and gone to another and there was no basis to arrest him and seized the cash on him simply because he was found with a lot of cash in a hotel and distracts you from doing it your justice but argument based on the fact that you should have been stopped even though there was an investigation and obviously the situation made you know bit more than that that's just suspicion again suspicion based on a lot of credible or an incredible evidence going forward o hire so that being said again it's one of those situations in this case in all the cases that are connected to it seems like one way or the other is where darkness more bad that evidence should have been suppressed leaves the hotel right yes and in my not correct from the police what seemed to me to be the most important of these facts the officers had reason to believe that in it in connection with investigating your client for this murder that he was holding burns against his will in the hotel room in the hotel that he just left there's notice there's no dispute about the fact that police only that he was not charged with kidnapping and when i understand it right i understand that but the point is they believed from people from from what people told them that he was holding burns against his will in the hotel room that he had just left right that's the l d s note i'm just i'm mystified why is that not alone ignore everything else why is that not sufficient to stop it because i don't good here so if you could stay up closer to the mike what i was going to ask you mr grilli is that when i asked the question about whether there was an adequate information to stop him mr richards response primarily was that the source of the information the police had about so i i'm not asking you to make mr richards case but has anything come up in this case that would suggest that she was not a competent source of information for the police were not in your arms or certainly not  again i'm sorry that i don't remember exactly in this case but when when the district judge went ahead and sentenced him for the supervised release violation was that something that he had admitted to our head he denied it and the well that's what i'm trying to figure out because the he's on he's on supervised release he's nested in connection with the murder and our drug deal but whatever it was that's a violation by definition then of the terms of do is that it is you look to see whether there's adequate punishment for both acts if if you run them concurrently and if you determine it's not adequate punishment for the reasons that you articulate then then you run it consecutively which is what the guideline says to do so this doesn't seem to me to be in any way out of the ordinary here to find that he's convicted of a drug offense he's put on he's told don't do it again and then he shortly thereafter does it again i agree with your your honor and that's actually one hundred and seventy one dollar calls for because there's a presumption that under the circumstances sentence would be consecutive so it's hard to impose it consecutively did he have the opportunity to make that argument you certainly have the opportunity to make your argument know who argue that it should not be thank you based on  thank you thank you very much mr richards you have three minutes but or address the issues regarding the reasonable suspicion now is this sort of speak being that you had this conversation regarding the facts of what happened i believe that it was made very clear by mr burns as regards her communication with their son that he was indicating that he could meet no one said he was being kidnapped no one said he was being held against his will in for a trained law enforcement to have to make the interpretation about not going say that something is wrong if anybody's going to tell someone something bad has happened to him is going to be their parent something more it's more of the interpretation of if he has to interpret he or she being law enforcement should look a little about how burns told edwards that they had lloyd in a hotel room and were feeding him pills and alcohol and then after taking care of a bird they were going to go into hiding at morton's residence in  in this in this situation the supervisor least issue was and aggravate was an aggravated take issue with the jail tape in the assault things and from the sentencing of mr morton the drug issue as regards the conviction with a minor is this new tape which came at the surprise of the defense counsel d was more of an aggravating factor and i think that's where the court after reviewing this state went