kilograms of heroin we start with mr s divides this test of with mr or tis his testimony that it was about thirty kilograms now about thirty kilograms if it was twenty nine point nine nine that would be the lowest sentencing guideline and six months and it's clear from the transcript of the sentencing that the extra six months seems to be for his role how could we conclude the district court would give him ten years and four months or ten years and two months if we sa there is there's an error that's an error that requires three sentencing that have to be sent back because the earth ortiz did say that thirty right he said about thirty three about thirty and that's all that they have now the question is he also said  and i you know we quote in our brief at ten eleven the district court went on for several pages you know trying to support that that estimate but if you and we and we go through and i brief every detail why none of that is sufficient for example the court said the first fact is said that there were multiple trips you know there were multiple trips that doesn't really tell you anything and about how much was transported we don't nobody disputes that if if he was different it was half the amount but then there's a trick or it goes on to say well but there's no indication that it was he we for that half the half the price he was agreeing to transport less well even even or tis his testimony recognizes as much that he was agreeing to transport less because he says that in a period a longer period he transported thirty kilograms versus the fifth the possible fifty that he says for f dispute that there's one kilogram but he also said and this is i think what the court has to keep in mind we're talking about at most a period of seven months thirty kilograms in seven months or maybe less because he says he started in the early summer and there's no dispute that he ended at the end of december so that the period of seven months that would mean for four and a quarter kilograms per month he says that some months and he only made one trip and he also says when he asked how much did you transport well sometimes it was a quarter sometimes it was a half and sometimes it was appealing the math just doesn't add up and the courts and you know the court says well let's look at the december we know that at that point he transported a kilogram and of carlos and he says a quarter a half a kilo so the kilo was the most amount so i just you know it's not a yes you can use estimates but when you're dealing with the court of recognize that the estimates have to be based on something and here it's just he threw out a number even as to fernando he acknowledged at the time of his arrest that it could have been forty to fifty the other thing is when you look at for in the end this because this is what  district court relied on his math doesn't add up so you have testimony that could be as they have a fernando's he transported only twenty you have a time in his own plea agreement the amount of drugs that  was responsible was between three and ten is based on the entirety of the record i think this court can clear conclude very clearly that there was clear error in terms of the sentencing and i think the lawyers clear in the circuit if there was there has to be remanded yes it may be that the judge may give the same sentence and remain and i don't believe he will because if we started with a low point and six months is still six months just turning briefly to the evidentiary issues  i recognize it's a high hurdle of the court really if ever will reverse for leading questions but this is not a situation where there were one of two leading questions this the testimony from the two main witnesses was infected with leaving questions i agree there was no objection it's beyond me why there was no objection because i have no doubt that had there been a direction the judge would have to sustain the objection and yes the government could have elicited this testimony i take it from that that you were not the trunk and i was and i had had the government the government could have tried to a list of this testimony to not only been questions there's a question and whether they would have gotten same answers and did if they would have gotten the same answers a question you have to ask yourself why did the government used to really resort to leading questions and you combine that error with the preserve the  the the risk by restricting him from from cross examining on the issue of the nature and the sufficiency of the government search you know the way the government corroborated the agent's testimony got the recross that d n c or would have been other than other than i didn't do the search of the car i can't tell you what the five means i don't know all i know is when i got to the searchers the troopers had found the two bricks how could it be anything other than that stone good afternoon your honour's my name is jeff stone i'm an assistant u s attorney from the district of connecticut the district court's judgment should be affirmed for several reasons first addressing the sentencing issue the district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's relevant quantity was priced me thirty kilograms of heroin he based this finding on specific evidence in the record principally on the testimony of course we are to use he found that ortiz testimony was credible that his testimony overall was consistent with much of the other evidence that was presented to the jury and ultimately determined by preponderance of the evidence that  was between thirty and ninety kilograms of heroin based on that he made an appropriate calculation the guideline range and ultimately imposed a sentence of one hundred twenty six months of imprisonment it took a lot of math to get there though it did take a little estimate on the stand that he had transported thirty kilograms for carlos yesterday so i think that was the starting point and then when judge shea went through the approximately seven month period about what was happening based on the evidence that elicited at trial he looked at that evidence to find either support for his we are teases estimation or not support in this case he found support he basically found that there was a course of dealing that remained consistent it started with one and three kill graeme's although he recalled that there were occasions where he transported as much as ten bricks and he understood that a brick to be a kilogram of heroin based on that testimony and the other corroborating evidence that judge shea went through during the sentencing proceedings he determined that that estimation by host we were ts was credible and credited that testimony he made a finding he openly calculated the guideline range based on that with regards to the was not on the scene when they made the initial stop and conducted the search of the car but rather he was some distance away and watching it with the aid of but not by an ocular zz and then after the seizure was made a full camera and came to the scene observed the evidence that was seized from ortiz's truck expert testified at length at trial about what he observed both under direct examination and cross examination and ultimately testified about what he did with that evidence subsequently namely he took custody of it sent it to the laboratory testified that when he took custody of it from the state it was still looked similar to how it looked in the day it was seized and ultimately ended up being a little bit over a kilogram of heroin with regards to the leading questions issue the initial comment i have your honour's is that rule six eleven provides district court broad discretion in overseeing the mode of the presentation of evidence here we have no objections were made to the questions there's no claim that the questions resulted in admissible evidence and significant portions of the challenge testimony was elicited through other testimony by these witnesses as a result the government's admits that the defendant cannot show the first two prongs of the plane or test but even assuming that the senate could show the first two prongs of the plane or a test he can establish the second two prongs he cannot show prejudice as something in particular about this witness who seems like there was a lot of leaning in and maybe that's not a problem i don't know yet but it seems like a lot of leading questions is there something about this witness and usually it's you know if someone's having a hard time explainers planing or if someone's not can speak english very well there might be some leaving permitted by the court but was the decision to be on leaving here is there an explanation for that your honor the witness did not speak english very well but there were leading questions and with the benefit of looking over the trial transcripts i was the prosecutor on that case and i examined mr ortiz looking at the trial transcript i realized that ike i could have asked much better questions and probably should have done it in a more artful manner that being said as articulated in our brief your honor government submits that even with those leading questions there is not your here much less playing there particularly given the overwhelming evidence regarding not only carlos esteve as is distribution of the kilogram of heroin on december thirty first two thousand and thirteen but his leadership role within this drug trafficking organization that was importing into connecticut and distributing within connecticut enormous quantities of heroin based on that the government supports that the defendant cannot meet his burden to show that there was plainer as a result of the leading questions that happened during the course of the trial accordingly the government's admits that the defendant has not shown a reversible error either on the evidentiary issues or with regards to the sentencing determination as a result the government's mit's that the judgment below should two points just the government is correct your honor is correct that he was not there at the search the problem is the testimony was the question that was asked we direct this is it a three thirty nine where those two packages the only drugs that were found on the truck answered yes and read there and we cause the defense counsel would have been able to explore what was the basis for that testimony meaning that precisely because he wasn't there he didn't know the adequacy of the search and cause of the car at the time that this search was conducted and so yes that do you know about the adequacy of or the search that was done and certain no do you know whether there could have been other drugs in the car answered no are you aware of the fact that at the time that he was stopped he said i was quote with five so you may be aware that will do you know whether there were five kilos five kilos in the car and that they were those were recovered those drug deal of that and you know that he had his own business going on that all the observations of him delivering drugs picking up money was on his own behavior klein had nothing to do with alkaline that's one thing that would go to that point of the other point that it would go to is made from the size of the bricks the only thing that could be made is we have testimony that sometimes you get a quarter sometimes a half and sometimes a kilo at most a kilo and if you just do the math it doesn't add up thank