it please court jordan gross on behalf of matthew davidson and i'm going to reserve two minutes for rebuttal before i begin my argument i would like to alert the court that one of the cases we relied on in support of our six amendment argument united states  greer which came out of the middle district of georgia was vacated every man did since the briefing was completed in the in this case so we although we stand on that argument we do with we withdraw our reliance on that particular case in support of the argument and also how prior convictions must be proven before defendant can be subjected to a mandatory minimum under the arm career criminals act or related sentencing enhanced minutes i'd like to focus my arguments this morning we've raised two issues with respect to this finding one with whether mr davidson was entitled under the sixth amendment to a jury finding and all the facts regarding his part convictions and also whether the government documentation is adequate to satisfy this court standard of proof under the modified categorical approach taking the second argument first in this court relatively recently in the united states versus submit to the court that the government's documentary proof in this case does not meet that rigorous standard as you know the four convictions that is sure mr davidson's for nine hundred eighty three burglary convictions we haven't challenge reliance on this top conviction or on that the burglary conviction from the ninety's but these four convictions are critical because without them mr davidson wouldn't be subject to sentencing enhanced one or two a fifteen year mandatory documentary proof and at best the proof is ambiguous and that's not sufficient to meet the rigorous standard what the government has to show is that under because it's under washington law which this court has repeatedly acknowledged is broader that also does not satisfy the inquiry it's only by reference to what i'm calling the first and second attachments to the police statement which are there's a c attached in the police statement but there's nothing to say which attachment you're referring to anything saying that counts to involve the residence nothing only with counts three four and five those two a residence visits to both of you have the right dates those aren't the correct dates there are tremendous ambiguities between the dates that are listed in the information reverse standard of proof if the dates don't even match up setting aside what the county doesn't have a residence but then if you look at some of the other counts the dates are interesting correct flat out incorrect and so this is a document that is so if you look at count three the dates just wrong so it's not you know he's but he's he's playing to account three but we don't even know i guess the point is really none of that this information is just not reliable it simply is not and it's not enough to support the just report's findings because of all these problems with the information that it relied on and so it really is the question is whether one of those rigorous standards should the court be cabins the district court be counting two reliable documents first and second attachments fall outside that category because they so are so inherently reliable and without the first and second attachments there is not sufficient proof that these counts these four counts one thousand nine hundred eighty three involved a building or structure armchair criminal she let me begin with this matter as this court knows in order to qualify for sentencing as an armed career criminal the defendant has to have been convicted of three violent felonies committed on separate occasions there's no dispute about qualify as the third conviction that's important because a lot of the arguments that mr davidson counsel it may go a long way to two of these counts they go to counsel two and three there is no inconsistency in the documents relating to counts four and five in this court would only need to find that one of those counts qualifies and so any argument about a deficiency in the language and count to the fact there is no reference to residence relating to count two it doesn't matter because this there is much stronger evidence on the other fenced yard you're entering a building under martian can more you could theoretically but in this case that that doesn't matter because then we get to the statement of defendant plead guilty and for counts for in private gives both the address sixty six and sixty seven status is how hard is oh here we got another document with all kinds of extraneous information that it shows that there's tremendous unreliability what that is is that's two pages of people who are owed restitution under this agreement they're not victims of the name counts the people entitle to restitution you'd expect those to be different names and different addresses and that document is also referred to explicitly in the number of pages of the plea agreement if a court look do that but that's also not the case if you look at n c a r one sixty two which is one of the pages mr davidson clearly says i'm pleading guilty to four counts of burglary and then there's a roman numeral two referring to the fact this is burglary in the second degree and finally the point  discussion of whether that meant to judgments or two counts the government looks back to the the in the charging document case the information which lists four separate judgments of conviction picked the two most recent ones that clearly were violent the jury or the judge did not give a specific instruction that highlight this i don't think anyone wanted to highlight the issue of defense counsel didn't ask for that one of the instructions given to the jury was that prior convictions were to be considered only to determine felony status sure the government can see that there are date discrepancies in two and three and i would hope that would be enough to take those out of consideration so that leaves us with with four and five and what i'm asking the court to do is not pull it apart this is one document and either convictions he's still subject to a fairly lengthy federal sentence for his underlying convictions so it has there has to be certain quality of the proof regardless of whether it's certified i don't think that's enough your honor and in terms of just you know