prior to sentencing here where on the third sentencing he offered his truthful it doesn't say what he did before strafford doesn't talk about the fact that maybe he didn't say it truthfully before we're looking at right before spring sensing he offered to the government to give a truthful pro the government refused so not to be obstinate vice at sentencing we wrote that down on paper for the government so the court could have a look at and your honor this in your window or discussion of somehow my client contributed to the th uncle got here is clearly erroneous as i've put in my reply brief when you followed the facts from the time line when my client what after his initial sentencing when he was in prison awaiting his first appeal cheryl gordon represented him at that time the uncle chris geno's case was openly being prosecuted by the government it was over a two year period at that time it my client made several offers to the government to talk to them about this particular case and that would include information about the call the government refused said they did not want to talk to my client and the problem is installed ultimately he didn't even have a chance at the time when it might to him mr macleod put on the record very specifically that my client had made several attempts to speak with the government make a profit for the government said i'm not interested and put on the record that it was in relationship to this particular case and the timing meaning right before this third set yes they were concerned about the timing but there was this innuendo that somehow my client controlled the timing and had done something wrong with  knew but in fact when we go back to the record of the second sentencing it's very clearly stated that my client was trying to give the information to the government decided we don't want to talk to you don't want to have anything to do with you and then at that third sentencing last last year about this arrington and we have the opposite here we have a client as the record shows that he was offering to talk to the government the governor would say no we don't hear you would we don't want to listen to you so we have the good things that's defined in  was imported into this case by the district court and the factual setting is completely the opposite here we have a client that is trying to talk to the government as the record sho whole clearly erroneous facts the two of them in this case about what my client did and when he what he was available taught to talk to the government the government want to talk to him permeated the whole record here and it makes an unreasonable sense from the beginning and it makes an unreasonable sense because the court said well even if i thought he should've gotten the safety valve i wouldn't apartment below the one twenty well there is a huge difference between one twenty and one fifty eight first of all and also for this whole idea that somehow my client w you the district court didn't have this information about what happened at that second sentencing hearing in front of judge tanner that my client and i it wasn't brought out at the sentencing i didn't represent him i have searched the record to try to show that this was this was not my client's fault and i system that has anything to do with whether with what sentence he gets he's followed along according to the law what he's supposed to be doing here and he's offering to give his information and it's gets tied up with somehow she had an considered as part of the twelve i guess he could consider it but what i'm saying is that it's not correct and i think that's what we have to back up ok and say that it's true that the fact on which the court promised its whole sentencing decision were clearly coming in arizona from where i was going to order and we said no that we're not interested in that we're not going there why she said he offered it to talk about this case i don't even know because it wasn't an issue it wasn't on the table that's why george tenet didn't need to address it going to trial he was sentenced twice never raises the safety valve it's only five years later after conviction that he says here's my safety valve proffer i want to talk to you and we said no for and i think for very good reasons we wrote that out in a letter cooperate it was that he didn't disclose he didn't answer the government's additional questions and with the government had additional knowledge lou the circumstances of the crime the defendant's role in the crime and the government well knew that the defendant was not being hon may have regardless of the value and let the government do with it what it can the sometimes it'll be some value sometimes there won't and that doesn't really have any bearing but in this particular case there clearly was something of great value it was purposely withheld it was purposely didn't have the bush district court's discretion well he can and i think it's late recognize that and i think he gave us some language in his decision that basically indicated to us that safety of our not this is where i'm going this is the right sentence and he said the transcript and he says so he dresses this in two different places in the transcript so it's the latter point where he addresses this and he basically explains look on the basis of the transcript alone i have great difficulty ever getting to clearly convincing evidence and therefore i'm not going there and even if rousers i think we would have had a different result clearly with trial judge tanner we did have a different result he twice that you're a leader and here's why the first time he didn't say why second time he said why and you know that's that's just our tough luck and i'm not complaining about that's just the way it turned out i don't complain the judge later said look on the basis of the transcript alone i can't just credibly the witness so i'm not going there but at the same time he did say i think you're a leader he said that right in the transcript but i'm not find in it by clear and convincing evidence