three specific enhanced minutes under a clear and convincing evidence standard of proof i i point that out because i think it's important to indicate for the record that my client attempted to raise fifty five motion i did include the order vacating the the sentence in the court on page eighteen addresses or among a slew of other things that the court is not going to consider are the it that's what i so i think that was preserved so the next stage is we proceeded to apply the standards which at that time the period to be clear and convincing evidence and i  indicate that when i when we found this most recent appeal we feel that under due process concern now that the blakely case just recently came down and i think the blakely case is applicable court should apply what what occurred in the blakely case i think the the the two questions in this case that my client needs addressed is that number one the court in fact apply the correct standard of you know was a clear and convincing evidence or should have been beyond a reasonable doubt blakeley says it should be beyond a reasonable doubt second should my client have had the right to then  to agree with you likely apply and then the jury had to decide beyond a reasonable doubt on these things should we really know and did with an opportunity to have reminded and i haven't had the opportunity to brief all of those issues but we've got a jeopardy problem potentially to the you know the case went to a jury trial the jury considered indictment that only said you're exploiting drugs to canada in a detectable quantity nothing more once my client's convicted on that i don't i don't know i don't think th the that a jury trial can be granted on those issues without putting my client again in jeopardy and he's already been in jeopardy once in the in the trial in this case well i think that in terms of blakely as opposed to the strategy and edwards we're not talking i think about discretion a separation of powers i think what we're talking about is the authority of the sentencing judge to find facts  that the determine how discretion should be applied and apply it when he applies a lesser standard proves them beyond a reasonable doubt and and you know we're i suppose we're at a pretty early stage in terms of how it well yeah your honor i think that the i pointed out in terms of the well first of all in terms of the quantity there i think there was a a a  large absence of proof as to quantity of narcotics in this case and there was some discussion in the record of the trial involving counting money and things like that i don't think anybody ever really was able to put their hands on any sizable quantity it was all based on testimony i think that that would would potentially cause a jury to have some doubts so again i pointed out in the clear and convincing evidence review of restrain a victim we've got you raise it and the district court wasn't going to consider it in the in the supplemental brief we've raised the issue regarding the amount i would request the opportunity to have the court consider that even come into play well if if my client is first of all if my client's going to be charged with the  t enhancements relating to conduct their cantu you know kidnapping and torture if if the if if those facts are well i believe that review is for playing plainer i don't think that it was properly brought before the well at least i don't think it was probably brought before the trial court at a time when it could have been researching many efforts to have the fall but it may very well be that they won't and as this court said and the chief was updated speculation does not permit us to ignore a controlling supreme court authority the same thing and  panels with priority over the issue but it would help us to know is it the issue squarely raised here such that when the whole matter is eventually straightened out is this a case in which then this court found that this defendant substantial rights were not affected by cents in sentencing him to thirty years notwithstanding the fact that the drug quantity was not charged in the indictment it was not proved to the jury because he has a  imposing consecutive sentences so tell me exactly what those sentences would be and for time i guess i'm saying that if for some reason or other thing the sentenced in the drug case were found to be unfair and sent back to the district court then he could sense the defendant twenty years and get in again i don't know if that would be if you know what sheriff was found whether or not that would be a twenty year sentence if he'd be as well for a twenty year sense at that point but that would give you know twenty years plus the general be thirty years ago because without waiting for a resolution of likely we could send this back and say three cents on the assumption of play clear plans and come in the same place i think that's a possibility  if i had nothing more or less the court has some questions   and i think we have a conflict of testimony between one person doing something as as awful as it sounds in the record in this case another person restraining them from doing it and i'm sure that  taught i don't think it would a fall after blakeley because i think the i think the i believe the reference the court is making their foot in those the indication that the such to a maximum is a different concept at that time and the so we do we do have a difference and i think it is correct that if it's if this goes back and my claim is send someone based on a jury verdict for the indictment of a detectable quantity fate he would face only a twenty year maximum you know it is it is true i mean i suppose a judge could run that the firearms case consecutive or concurrent or war or whatever however i still think my client has a as an opportunity and a right to