then you don't really have the whole story in this case there happens to be a longer version and it goes on and on the struggle different you have two different trials where are his statements it becomes questionable whether h concerned i was i was i thought that we were dealing excessive amounts and the judge says you mean a reasonable person would believe that that those were excessive amounts and my client if he were to flee hearing correct the judge's was no excessive to me but he really personal feels morally responsible for behavior but it turns out his behavior is not a sort of kind that we intend to be punishing under this law and that's really the question of raised here that we shouldn't hold him i think i'm saying that the voice of a the typical way for vagueness being waved after a guilty plea is that this is an exception to that rule and that yes i suppose not under any circumstance any judge asking do you have any hesitation with this please mr dale responded that he's only had a patient was recalling all the specific facts that led him to believe or have a reasonable cause to believe that he in fact knew or had reason cause please of that the distribute it after you knew that it was being used to manufacture methamphetamine and the the defendant responded yes so there are many relevant factors in this case that indicate that he did know rather than just having a reasonable cause to believe which the statute puts out he didn't know first of all not only just the excessive amounts of two to veteran that he was selling his largest producing product and he wasn't just a drug distributor you're honest he was in the business  supplying convenience stores with any type of product with the exception of apple and tobacco he provided it was just his biggest product that he sold in just one specific land to the federal action branch to the federal now the defendant became aware spectrum and that means before you distributed your first pill that shoot a veteran and he said yes in fact before he got his license as a registrants to be the pills he was informed by d n a diversion this product is being used to to sort of veteran he makes a livery to have a garage not to the convenience store the clerk passed him don't put this on the invoice but the clerks pay him or the owners of these convenience stores paying him with cash large amounts of cash in fact there's a process and if you look in his guilty plea he points out of it and you also point out that it's mr rationalised porter's while he says you know what the a lot of times and i paraphrase here that mr porter would just come to my house and pick up the food ephedrine i didn't have to do anything i would make my profit mr porter would go stale to present any other product that mr porter would pick up no just a sudafed so he was aware what this product was being used for before he even sold one pill and to come up to say well it's vague well certainly he mr vail a person of ordinary intelligence certainly he knew what conduct was prescribed understand he was told that on multiple occasions by the d n a in fact he was asked  during trial who was responsible to regulate the distribution of these products emitted the v a told him he was so it's somewhat disingenuous for mr vaile now to say well i didn't know what i was pleading to objective element and that the facts and circumstances then known to the defendant would alert a reasonable person that that product was being used to manufacture methamphetamine and certainly during the thing that i think is really important in this case is to parallel the concept of reason to believe one thing versus reason to believe another you have reason to believe that there's these drugs like the lose for down the line by yet