withdrew the second argument leaving two remaining argument i'm withdrawing the third argument in the brief this morning that argument was that missouri second degree robbery was not a crime of violence i believe that issue has been resolved in light of the stoking decision last month that leaves the remaining issue raised in the brief and that is whether the district court erred in assessing three criminal history points for defendants two thousand and nine robbery conviction that robbery is listed  understanding and i hope i'm not wrong on this point but that the actual state court judgment from july twenty sixth two thousand and eleven is not a part of the record but it's a public record surely we can look at that the judgment and i had roughly the same question judge changes what's going on with suspensions which are talking about but it doesn't mean that he wasn't serving fourteen months on the second degree robbery sentence in the judge's post take into account actual time honor so i think it's important in looking at this issue to know that it comes up in the context of an objection to the pre sentence report and so the government bears the burden the understand wishing that this conviction should receive three so the question i have i'm not i'm not with the actual judgment from july twenty sixth two thousand and eleven not being part of the record the question i have and i don't believe it can be answered this morning why do we know that that sentence for the two thousand and nine the missouri robbery that we know that that sentence was run fully concurrent partially concurrent or consecutive to the two other ten year sentence is that he received on that da objection is raising of this nature saying we don't think three points are appropriate that what should happen and what needs to happen is that the state court record should be produced and i agree with the court that had those records been produced and presented to the district court that essentially that likely would have resolved the issue i think though that this review is somewhat akin to asking a court to determine whether a defendant conviction under a divisible statute qualifies as a crime of violence and then supporting and then providing no shepherd approved documents from which to conclude that that conviction is a crime of violence i don't believe you can conclude from the record in the district court that in fact  i respectfully disagree with what that's what the p s r said it to the extent the court is reaching conclusions based on what the p s r said so i would note with respect to those two other convictions that he received on that same day on july twenty sixth two thousand and eleven it's noted in the p s r that the remainder of those sentences is suspended and he is placed on two years probation with respect to paragraph thirty seven it notes only that the sentence is banded two years probation i think the logical conclusion if the court wants to draw conclusions from the language in the pre sentence report is that with respect to paragraph thirty seven that sentence entirely was suspended and orally the remainder of the sentences were suspended with respect paragraphs thirty five and thirty six otherwise the remainder of language in paragraph thirty five thirty six is meaningless and district court properly assessed three criminal history points and i will make my comments very brief and unless the court has additional questions to our work on what counsel said about there's a distinction between the three different offenses that were sentenced on different days counsel pointed to the word ended i would draw the court's attention to united states versus relating to a prior time or anything else noted afterward that the prior sentence of imprisonment refers only to the portion of the sentence not and therefore the united states respectfully conviction and spends the sentence puts him on probation but he hasn't as i would imagine he hasn't yet served any time on that conviction so how many points supervised turned onto probation if the court has not included an order that says he's given credit for x y z jail time served honor as an assistant federal public defender i've had the opportunity to go to a number of federal criminal sentencings over the years and i'm aware that the conference of the evidence standard in my at least in my opinion this  basin really low but i had always thought perhaps until this morning that at least there was some evidence that was would need to be provided in the face of an objection to the defendant one question that i find troubling is if it is so straightforward why was there not a single document from this state court case presented to the district court and given that we know that there wasn't going on what basis is the court concluding that in fact this entire sentence wasn't partially suspended and i think the court hypothetical sums up what i'm suggesting to this court is that we don't know based on the information in the record that this sentence was not fully suspended or alternatively we don't know that it was an order to run consecutively i understand that there may be information available publicly but there's no indication in the record that the judge was aware of that or that he relied upon that so i think what you're left with is a well founded objection to which you know and i'm not unaccustomed to this to which the government comes in and says oh come on judge probation is right and then no evidence is presented in you know he gets the three points all i'm suggesting and i don't think it's too much to ask if these documents are so readily accessible and anybody could find them why on earth didn't the government whose burden it is present those to the court because i don't think anyone can say with certainty that this sentence wasn't ordered to run consecutive to the two other