about that at the district court after receiving all the stuff from everybody in the history judge said to console the district court luck looks to me like you are not it's agreed that the felonies were aggravated and that the only claim here really deform is on the doors tarth that it's basically all of our stars is no longer good law tara's argument subsumed the others part i didn't understand well i think i mean i don't think we have all sorts of cases and including reverse sanchez and all those cases that we've had in this we've dealt with this precise issue without dealing with any of the elements or as taurus problems and i'm missing something in your argument well what i think your honor is that is that the amador stories argument is based upon the fact that the judge for nasa's question is did you wave the of the taylor argument before the district court i don't think i did and there's this several reasons why one is that i specifically objected to those calculations in my sent six summary chart which is i did not in fact argue as i did argue in my my briefs the teller analysis but if you look at the government's even if i did not argue it i don't believe i waive that in would be on a plane or sudan or however i do believe that it was preserve saying if it's if it's under if it's basically any drug offense that's punishable by felony under state or federal court that's going to qualify why doesn't my duties qualify well i mean just for getting questions a waiver with nothing in the information or in the judgment of conviction that demonstrates that the standard was knowledge it doesn't state that so we are not aware if you look at the probable cause statement does state that he says he sold to an undercover officer however under shepherd that's not something that should be considered and in looking at the charging document alone it's not clear and even and the the only thing that we have is substance why isn't that specific enough on knowledge well because the way that washington state defines knowledge they define knowledge by one actual awareness and two that a person he was information would lead a reasonable man in the same situation to believe the facts exist that the difference is that under under washington state law knowledge then can be proven even where the defendant was not actually aware of the facts known and that's not something that federal law allows i don't like i think your argument be clearly that any time knowledge appears in a washington state statute it's going to be overbroad under taylor the two year probably the most important factor here it's already been hit upon by the court and that is that the two convictions that the united states admitted in support of its request for the enhancement both of them on their face was if you combine the charging document with the judgment and conviction contain explicit facts that establish that both of these crimes both of you talk and washington state are in fact drug trafficking offens have little problem two problems really the argument you're making now sounds very much like you are going the bridge is the government conceding that but for those informations that the statutes  the fact that something's claimed in the information is completely insufficient to bring in within the taylor analysis with the second step of the taylor analysis so information just won't do i think what we don't know what the person is actually found guilty of just because the information said we have no way of knowing that if we don't see a judgment or jury instructions tell us what he was found guilty beyond the softening information document on its face along with the judge and conviction as to evidencing that he in fact pled guilty along with what the judgment and conviction that the certified copies of the judgment and conviction along with the charging document  her well first of all i would say that the you talking to you plead guilty to the crime charged in the information i would argue and i think the case i would support th that in fact in the absence of evidence to the contrary and information containing specific facts that are sworn before the court in conjunction with the judge and conviction outlining the statute knowingly intentionally distribute offered greek and sound are arranged to distribute a controlled substance that you touch me in convictions specifically contains sworn facts by the officer stating that he sold him a obtained from the following witnesses and there's a probable cause but i would argue under separate that's just me you just only recognisable document because it outlines the facts one before the court that constitute the crime in this case and i don't think that's i mean i don't want to he didn't regardless of what was charged and you can you can plead guilty to something that's different from what was charged that's if you say i i'm going to plead guilty to the charge period that's one thing i suppose if  pled guilty to and the conduct he agreed to that that he can commit when you clear understand frustration i mean the other side of the coin on that is you're sending someone to prison for many many more years they found something that otherwise we have to get right into the facts and find out what happened happened and the crime so that's the there's the two sides of the argument i understand the court's concern and i think the government does concede that if that information did not contain the facts that it contains regarding the actual purchase of the cocaine connection with the definition of knowledge that's in the statute and therefore because the knowledge in the statute is overly inclusive and therefore this the information to that well first of all i think my first response would be that number one the information is specific it specifically states that he purchased and you know that the undercover officer asked for cocaine he said here's your cocaine they purchased it how how much more specific can you be is the actual knowledge of what you are doing but also in a sponsor to do the second portion of that of your question and that is the knowledge that the defense is arguing that the definition of knowledge that applies to all of washington statutes across the board not specifically this particular one makes it over broad and i would say no there's no case law cited by the defense whatsoever that says that this that construct of of knowledge it's adequate and i would argue for this particular crime and i i would argue the language of the statute itself mandates you'd have to know you were selling illicit drugs in order to be convicted of the statute  simply you cannot apply the general construct of knowledge definition to this particular statute on its face in order to sell our offer for sale a controlled substance you have to know what you're offering for sale of a deliberate indifference that nonsensical that you'd have to know it was a controlled substance and under federal law we have a jewel instruction for precisely that type of you just keep saying no no no but washington says when we say no we mean that it was cocaine in the sense of actual knowledge that would allow conviction because they were deliberately indifferent to the transportation i'm going to take the mule situation you don't know what's in the package and therefore it gets delivered that you may not have had knowledge because the definition in washington is exactly we do not and i'm suggesting that when we look at this what tells us other than the definition of knowledge in washington what tells us your yes your honor i think it's the government's burden to prove that his conduct was within what is punishable by federal law and i think under the documents that they submitted they did not prove that that's one secondly i don't want to sta when prosecutors are concerned about this they tend to use language that might say that aware of a fact or circumstance as a result of satirists other i mean  i'm i'm sure there are i've never and we also this will not a good defense counsel non issues got his record because something's going to happen down the road and we're going to make sure we have no trouble about it on this record we don't think well i think that knowledge as it is the find in