at its stead they recruited a guy named christopher her shower and mr hersh our allegedly purchased small quantities of heroin on several occasions from oliver was charged with drug distribution offenses that allegedly occurred within one thousand feet of parks or schools he proceeded to trial where he was convicted by the jury at sentencing as i said the district court ward ended up imposing that twenty five year minimum sentence because it found that the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that mr oliver had two prior convictions for serious drug felons the convictions at issue were out of cook reflected by exhibits what into a specific issue that we're raising is that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the precise nature of those prior convictions and in particular the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that mr hanson can you hear i can hear you now judge ok and to do let us know if you can't because we're having a bit of trouble with your video and audio and i want to make sure you have your full opportunity to  present your argument and is there anything in the record that were guarding the exhibits as to what the specific controlled substance was that was the subject of the conviction the substance of us average there so because of that i think there's a particular issue with the conviction reflected exhibit two that even if you accept all the assumptions the district clearer video image and it sounds like the audio is much better as well judge kelly when you hear him say mr hanson yes i think i can and it does from initial view it does look better so thank you both and i good one there's a particular problem with exhibit two because there's no identification of the subsection of the statute at issue no identification as to the controlled substance at issue in that case and because of the separate circuits recent decision in truth that's particularly problematic because if it was cocaine there is a real question whether that qualifies as a serious drug felony is there any other subsection within the that illinois one statute that would render th several either less common substances without knowing what to do the condition was based on from the base of the analysis the shepherd or the face of the documents you've given us your argument would be it can't qualif end the admission that we need to do the categorical or modified categorical analysis because we don't know from these documents and the other evidence the government produced sensing what exactly mr oliver picked and that goes with  problem with identification of the controlled substance and seemed to link up heroin a certain amount of heroin and and deliver a near a protected yes that's exactly right and that's especially significant now since the st step wires or title twenty one section eight hundred and forty one the one day a serious drug felony as opposed to a felony drug offense it narrows the definition in some way so it's especially important to know for example that mr oliver didn't plead to a lesser included possession for example which would not qualify as a serious drug well for career candor and my understanding of both parties from my memory of the breeze say well essentially this is limited and i think there may be a footnote and d your d i'm talking about this is that properly at this point i don't think it's properly before the court if it's if the court were just to remand the case on the question of whether there were serious drug felonies the district court would be obligated again to conduct a guideline calculation and at if there are no further questions on the senate's acacias i do want to address one at least one of the errors that we have raised respect to the trial as the court likely noticed i have arguing for committed trold substance as with and protected locations within one thousand feet of a park or a school d and so for that piece of these maps that purported to show that he did very important evidence to the government there were different types of it evidence that they all had top of each others they all designated points of interest for the jury to consider both the alleged scene of control two transactions between mr oliver and christopher her shower from the sioux city police department he told a couple of city of city employees created the maps what was the point of significance for these maps are they to mark them on the maps and create these maps for trial both parties seem to agree that the lizard rocket rado case of the night circuit seems to be the most helpful in analyzing this issue particularly analyzing whether these maps contained hearsay i think contrasting the map and its single that it strawson that's correct that of course does not make the maps not hearsay but i understand your question to go to the to the question of harmless air there are two responses to that one again this was a really really important issue if mr oliver had not committed these crimes or alleged crimes with within protected locations he would have faced no or a very short editorial minimum sentence as it was the court found that it was twenty five years as defendant did this did this within a protected location that's very powerful evidence and that's why we assert that it was prejudicial air  have said that drugs are tools of the drug trade but and that my question here is in this particular case other than the conversation with the c i was there any evidence of any firearms that this particular man one question my understanding was that it was the c i who started the conversation about the sale of firearms to my mom about that i don't recall specifically  investigation showing that the pennant was involved in trapping firearms i think the c i was directed what was that and that what was that evidence that he had been involved in the trafficking because it seems to me that that that the nature of that evidence or the strength of that evidence seems quite relevant as to whether it's used the word again relevant to this particular drug conspiracy or the distribution case what was the nature of that crime or and that and well i guess it was in the base of the investigation as a whole but i think if my memory serves me correctly that there was a robbery regarding  drugs and i think mr author wasn't involved in that maybe a victim of that or somewhere in their drug conspiracy circle that there would have been a robbery that occurred and that's what prompted the conversation kind of about th probably found that there was a basis in fact for the government to ask questions that did you mr glen that bean knew they shanab another cooperate or that he couldn't believe the bag amid all the padding the government replaced those that somehow it made it into one of those maps made it into the electronic version of the exhibit that the jurors asset to the big issue here exhibit before they went back to the jurors that think the overwhelming evidence here that the government had against the defendant as i stated already those for audio and voter or grass recorded control by with the with the defendant thing that evidence the jury and them and there's no indication that the alternate version of the government's exhibit with you during that time period and i will say to that the government they're not certified they're not legit in documents or it wasn't me i understand the argument to be we don't know what the conviction was so we don't know whether it qualifies can you speak to that wasn't presented in the district court filings or on appeal and so for those reasons it's not important court right now but i understand those to be new cases and that's why they're raising in a rule twenty  circuit recently ruled on this issue in truth it was a raise of the defendant in any of the district court proceedings even though it was an issue that was articulating during that time period so for that let's say it's not way what what do you think the whole of the root analysis is on this particular issue well i would miss that as the court knows that stated that group is not you i'll go back to the the sentencing issue of whether mr oliver had convictions for serious drug felonies when the government argues that mr oliver waived this issue below i think the government misunderstands the nature of the challenge this is not primarily a legal challenge this is a factual challenge in order to do the analysis that we need to do to decide whether mr oliver was convicted of a serious drug felony we need to know for example with exhibit two what subsection of that statute is at issue certainly it could not have been the case that he was convicted of every every subsection under five hundred and seventy slash forty one are numerous substances in different forms of conduct listed under that statute so the government loses that the factual stage by not giving the district court and nothing for mation to do that analysis of this of course tissues the way because mr oliver made it very clear that he was denied the fact that he had the prior convictions i do want to hearken back to something the church trust said it is correct that the pre sentence report is irrelevant to this determination to look at the shepherd documents to look at whether the prob the government's proven proven