yes i think that oh well how do you read again in terms of your side of the case search not just as they were leaving and that was violated here but and this is the big issue for you but by and large we don't do anything about it if they don't follow that rule it has and other cases if it's not we don't do anything about it where it was non prejudicial and not in willful disregard of rule forty one and over there there is the agent does not seem to have been of the mind i knew it the lawyers and i chose to violate it he seems to have been of a mind i wish to follow the rules and this is what i understood the rules t that's the officers are supposed to give the warrant to get it but it's for whether we're supposed to suppress that's where i it looks to me like there's a whole when you're authorities tell me exactly does it matter does it matter that the officer told the subject of the search and the subject's mother that he was referring pursuant to the search warrant and they let him go ahead rather than asking for on the side of the p s r with respect to the sending the material is it clear that the material that was heard it's going to matter if if you prevail on one or another aspect of the appeal on the sentencing then we would remain for a recent thing and this research thing would be under booker and it's just hard to imagine that the judges are going to the part upward to the maximum permitted by statu well many weather is what we have to deal with  this is not your usual felt pornography case this is not in the heartland well earlier discussion and our job is not limited to correcting the prophet just papers we have to decide whether there's any point to vacating the sentence and there it's hard to see what prejudice there might be from this or that calculation error where the judge has plainly indicated on a basis in the record an intention to sentence to the can you distinguish many whether they realize many whether it's going down and this is going  in the ninth circuit you have to be able to count to three in this business i only got a third of the way there that's right so but with regard to the guidelines themselves as you will guidelines themselves in the commentary of the notes and the commentary by observing that any pattern of sexual abuse not only justified the five level increases under the guidelines but it was an appropriate subject matter for parks are above the b and yet so we want to make sure and i believe the court doesn't understand that when of the agent in this case we had a little bit of an exchange during the hearing about the defense attorney using the term the liberal versus intentional ignorance regarding the rule forty one the requires here in the ninth circuit will not be tolerated this agent could come for why would we tolerate here we're not going to tolerate it in the future having outbuilding which was was the residence of the son even though the search would have allowed a more extensive search when the mother said no we don't have any any for my son doesn't use computer guy i hear what you're saying around or he ideally law enforcement should be aware of changes in the law for a variety of circumstances and leaving the defendants coming from a jake and properly decided if you have an extensive hearing i would also wish cory are you saying that i think i heard you say earlier that you don't think we should apply again in this phase that you say not apply any sanction that you construed against to require prejudice and in this case told that there was no prejudice but virtue of the oral notification  three do not usually demand suppression however under ninth circuit law technical violations of will forty one day require suppression only if there was a deliberate disregard of the rule yes or if the defendant was