garcia i'm not going to call a probation officer as an adverse witness to cross examine him i'm satisfied that this matter can be determined on submission by  and what's also clear from the text the second hearing is that he did have arguments when he was finally allowed to say something he presented extensive argument to remedy your honor i would to make it is not to remedy those ar believe it was a misunderstanding there i believe that when counsel says we submit on what has been submitted and argued the government like that to be well love you talk about here except remedy and that's what the judge here was required to serve a senate that was required to serve a period of time in a mental health facility an african being given two opportunities to do so failed both times and one of the things that fans wanted to argue was playing there was a due process violation for not being able to argue the fact that she was unable to do so based on her mental health is very similar to the defense argument regarding blood pressure in this particular case and what this court noted in the picture of decision is that the defendant mr phillips willfully refused to report or reported later was trying to game us which to the a perfectly reasonable deduction from the record  as to what portions of the report constitute a violation of i agree with the court at the outset that the district court statements is what was doing are far from the model of clarity or whatever else is required let me take a as well and give you kind of my analysis as to in responding to your question i think in terms of specifically where in the record that something that said i think that you know the way that the government workers of course look at it that there are these two consecutive forty five day you know forty five days but he doesn't say not something that sufficiently warrants self assault surrender date and at least tends to support the notion that the district court is buying into and believes that the probation officers belief which is the fourth in her letter that the defendant is using his blood pressure as an excuse and that there is some element of mulling going there that's about as good as it gets in terms of the record now if i can argue and step back and just say that you know we would argue that that because the defense you know as to the question of whether there's a violation here there's another hearing and he would argue that there really isn't an end in evidentiary question as to whether or not he's in violation because all we have is a probation officer statement even if we don't adopt that what judge vance it early and say that while all the defense arguments are going toward the remedy which is in fact what we believe in fact was was happening in this case there was a violation because the defendant did not comply with the conditions and you didn't show up you couldn't do that so therefore we have the violation established all the other argument that occurred is going to t did if i use the word admission i misspoke all i meant to say was that yes the defendant and i greeted that it denied that he committed the violation but if a person can plead not guilty but based on the evidence that the government so that the court can still find a violation over the defendant's denial that's what the question that's what i was getting at is the fact there was no dispute here on my computer and then this case because here it was absolute denial that was put on for hearing there was a mix up there was a misunderstanding the record is very felt that there was a violation yeah i mean there's that nationals up to the very beginning correct ok individual was in violation he wasn't going to hear arguments you were going to find him in violation based on his