simply does not support the defendant sold two or more firearms to an individual knowing that that individual or having reason to know that that individual intended to use or dispose of the firearms lawfully  mr moody sold firearms were were unknown but there were people who had heard about the train burglary and they wanted to buy the stolen firearms so i want to know where that are those if you want to think of it as two facts come from i don't know the only facts i think that are in this record about the recipients the so called recipients or who how these sales happened or who we knew or anything like that came from the end of the change when there was a discussion about whether or not he was going to get out and or there should be a time and the question was what happened to the guns mr moody said he sold the firearms to people who knew i think it was knew about i don't have the transcript in front of me but it's like knew about it or something like that it's not clear that they knew what what mr moody was saying is they knew they were stolen and knew of the minute or that training burglary or anything like that but all of the actual facts come from that statement now i'm confused because in the hearing the judge juwan that because your whole point about this common sense in france was people were calling you who heard about the heist and wanted to buy the guns from you the seller the judge referring to facts that morning and the record at the sentencing hearing and if so why wasn't there an objection at that point i don't i don't i don't know of any facts in the record anywhere including in the pre sentence report that would indicate what the recipients knew yours or what your so i think what you're talking about that but again i just don't think that that that's clear one way or another but let's say it is the burglary that's still look it's not evidence that mr modi and this is what has to be shown that mr slipping and so there's no way to tell whether those recipients percipient recipients were prohibited but if they were it had to be with drugs or violent crime felony conviction again there's no evidence of that i understand i think why the court sort of made the sweeping assumption that it did you know that there is a gun problem in chicago there is a violence problem in chicago there's no doubt and i'm not here to in any way sort of push that aside or denigrate that the transactions dangerous i mean again i'm not i'm not here to say that that's not the case but that's also not the question that has to be answered and here it has to be what did mr mo e defendant had purchased firearms five puts pistols in texas smuggled them into mexico and gave them to her common law spouse and another person and the district court in that case made the assumption to use a gun you know that they had a conversation or something like that his knowing that whether people heard that the guns were stolen or not that they know that he had that he has some guns they're not interested in going through the permeating  that he knows that they are either drug traffickers right violent criminals exactly exactly but as to that question i think there's a lot of circumstantial ways there's not a lot of cases that circumstantially a court could say this defendant had reason to know there's a discussion about obliterating serial numbers there was a there's a case that cited in the briefs where there is an undercover agent says i'm going to run this money through a tattoo parlor to legit the money or something like that you know he doesn't know for sure what the undercover saying he's going to do with it but the circumstances surrounding the sale certainly suggests something subjective inquiry it's not would we as reasonable people do this or we as reasonable people think x y or z it is this defendant and what did he have a reason to something more unlawful with the fire four and again just for example we gave we gave the example of laurie sheltering in this case who purchased several of the firearms that had been stolen on this train car she was a postal worker single mom lived in a say about the recipient and more importantly what does it say about mr moody's knowledge of the recipient's intent ok i mean if you're going to have to stop now i think i'll give you a little bit to respond when you do about i want you to you know what i'm saying about it and i'm having a lot of trouble translating that into the first sentence in your brief under part c unknown individuals who heard about the train burglary and wanted to buy a stolen firearms for all i know people who wanted to buy stolen firearms wanted to get a gun on the cheap you know and and like michelle to put in their closet they may not have been prohibited persons and they may not have had any privileged use in mind well first let me go to the to the language that was used by the defendant both the government and the court were operating under the assumption based on what mr moody said to the court about where these going to end up that these are yes you don't know where they are now yes the judge says would you tell the judge what you did with the signs and he says i had sold them to different people who asked about them like for example like people interpretation of the court order or the government and at the sentencing hearing the court made it clear that that's what what he what he found and again the defense counsel never made any argument to the contrary no no not when he said he heard about it now you're making a plain error point i people come to you and you sold the guns and the defendant responded right like different people who heard about it you know what i'm saying about it that he meant the train rhino that's what you think and i'm telling you that i don't agree with you but if so i'm at that even if you're wrong stage i recognize that you're starting argument that it's there that it somehow means what you say it means if it's ambiguous and there's no evidence in the record then if it was clear in your times ok and that was the government's argument as well because it goes to the dangerousness of the crime these are people who are in the market for stolen guns and the only people in the market for stolen guns are typically people who can go to a store and buy a gun but there are people who do all sorts of bad things with guns yet of course they're the ones who either can't or won't go to a store but again you look at what the district court said there is absolutely no question that the few people example of where stolen guns in chicago go because we don't even know if these are the guns that muti was selling there were quite a few guns taken off that train absolutely only sold thirteen of them so we have no idea whether the guns that you found elsewhere experienced star was under any illusion about that right so the question is right under the guidelines and interest group made this point earlier it's not just after knowledge we don't have to prove actual knowledge that would be very difficult short of the statement by the defendant that's why the defendants to be sentenced who made a decision not to have justice and the benefit he got out of it because you know we want imply and intentional waiver of something unless it were something that the defendant got at in your argument is that it's accept that might qualify as a forger we are persuaded that the defendant intends relinquish the right to challenge the guidelines range particularly in light of his numerous affirmative statements of agreement with the enhancement in the calculation and i think that's what you have here where the conceding a floor level trafficking in hands when he's going to get acceptance of responsibility he can stand entirely quiet he can at jacked ask that the government be put to its burden and still got acceptance of responsibility there is no benefit whatsoever that i can find in this record that would suggest that she said i think it is a forfeiture it is plainer there's i mean we argued that in our brief there wasn't objection it is a plain or standard but this court has has indicated that when there is higher or lower i think you have to go back and last but i can say remember the defendant he may be the fifth defendant that was in line for sentencing he's not present at each and every one of the sentencing and the evidence was different walker and lewis there was evidence about their sex there was evidence about their recipients and there was evidence about what they knew the recipients were going to do with those