notion that an enhancement could depend on whether the state defines the conduct as burglary was basically the chrono sanchez tort realize that we need a federal benchmark for upon the desirability of uniformity in sentencing and relying upon that the cars are as good as court made if determination and taking into consideration that we need uniform treatment for people who are similar backgrounds who commit the same offense should be treated similarly and the sentence in contact context now that on long supreme court decisions basically who committed the same conduct within the federal courthouse in the reason for that is because under federal law it's not it's a misdemeanor not a felony so that type of disparate sentencing where you have somebody who committed the exact same conduct have the same meaning and right now with the tensions between of our of the unknown we don't have the same words in the same statute having the same meaning and so that's another reason why it's important for this court to uniform approach when you look at the ordinary meaning of the term drug trafficking crime little girl also told us to go to the ordinary meaning of the terms and when looking at the ordinary meaning of the term drug trafficking crime it doesn't make sense that simple possession would fall into the ordinary meaning of drug trafficking crime there's also a rule construction that notes that when you're dealing with federal statutes you should determined to be a felony under california state law however under federal law mr figure as a sentence would not have been enhanced because under federal law simple possession was a misdemeanor and he could not say that some rule has to be different because of this principle and was it just sort of a passing comment it went to the lawn of analysis in determining the decision and level file it wasn't  the right but but it is something that this court needs to take into consideration and noting that the supreme court's recognizing that we cannot have these differences in the same sanchez also extensively discussed the difference between federal and state did but at the same time it found that you cannot have a separate meaning the aggravated felony had to have the same meaning and regardless of whether that simple  changes the course posture on this or should change of course posture on this because in this particular case we're talking apples and oranges is just helps when you're talking immigration law and you're talking  federal state drug possession laws so apples and oranges there's no need to have those uniform in that particular case you've got a situation where as i stated before you know various they say have different laws regarding becomes a federal situation because the federal definition right now because of the state that well you because it is a federal it becomes this kind of tricky because we have the federal situation because what they do is take that fel determination made in the state and use that we were still using them for an aggravated felony charge and what they're of course to do in that case is look at the look to the state to determine whether or differently in the system and yet given the fact that all you know is it action that may have been pleaded guilty to we don't really know what the original conduct was we never really will know what all the contacts that state law it was clearly a felon because he was punishable by three years and then whether or not it violated the federal controlled substance that those on only two things that according to the state of the law are now that i think that the court  if the government did not get a chance to file a twenty a j letter in this particular case but if the court needs more would like for the briefing from the governor if you'd asked for a couple weeks to respond to the defendant's  ok if she had given him a higher sentence if she'd gone up to you know something more than thirty seven months i think that there may be an argument for that but it was clear that that wasn't the case she was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt in petitioners favor although here we deal with session sixteen in the deportation context section sixteen is a criminal statute and it has both criminal and non criminal applications because we must interpret the statute consistently statute and in this case as well we have a statute that the ills with both immigration and criminal consequences so we do need to interpret it consistently as well as well that with respect to the question that deals with whether this statute it could also include aiding and abetting which would then not be an aggravated felony so i'd ask the court to consider amending on that in light of that as well with respect to the second issue in light of shepard this court should reassess the judge is still it's not going time was when the guidelines for mandatory the judge still felt compelled to sentence within that guideline range and it doesn't matter that she sentenced at the high end of the guideline race because she was still making a determination of where this person was in compared to other people that are in that same guidelines has she not been bound by the guidelines she may very well have found that a different guideline was appropriate or that a different sentence was appropriate not