my name is kevin gringo and i represent the defendant appellant longer raritan solids like to reserve a minute for a bottle at the end of this case presents i think one overarching issue although of course there's two separate issues the overarching issue i think is what evidence the government must  nt to prove a contested sentencing enhanced made by clear and convincing evidence and that issue arose into context one of the identification was the alleged predicate sixteen level has meant actually a conviction correct and then there's just a slew of a case thirty three and one of them is won by data that's accurate your honor you don't even suggest that there is any inaccuracy evidence and what did they do to show the judge which of the two equal possible possibilities was true and the point is they did nothing they brought no evidence at all the government brought in zero they filed no papers they filed no response judgments and they came to court with no evidence and it was the court where you reach out and ask the probation officer please let me see these documents another thing if i may your honor that distinguishes this case from america remember around on that same page of the opinion page eleven sixty three the court notes there that the kids are in that case was far more detail than the one in this case the court there says the p s r listed the source of the information as computer checks from f b i cia europe prisons ins and other below and the government tried to make it a part of the record on appeal and it was stricken but even if it were one would look at that rap sheet that they wanted the court to look at and see that it's in two parts to very distinct parts the first part saying it was based on fingerprints the second part not saying it was based on fingerprints and this conviction appears on the second part so even looking at that rap sheet there's no indication that it was based on fingerprints so what you did here was just a jack to the to the  the probation reports i don't think that's an accurate statement respectfully what we were able what we did if i could take a step back there is something that regretfully i don't think i made clear in our statement reality etc obviously i have only known him a short while and i don't know what he what he may or may not have been doing in the eighty's and ninety's so the best source of information for a defense counsel in such a situation is let me see the evidence and i asked the probation officer for the other once and she said not without a court order and so in our objections i said i'd like to see the the evidence and as i said it wasn't provided and except by fax the morning of the hearing the government seems to think that and the court was not and we pointed out the difference between remember and on where the defendant never questioned the factual accuracy of the p s r nor the classification of the previous conviction and we did both those things we did in writing by saying we have jacked and we asked for the evidence and then i got it the morning by fax and i walked into the hearing and i said your honor here are the things that are wrong the name doesn't match your honor didn't know that by looking at the p s r there is a fingerprint gonzalez they had all the evidence they needed they just needed to take the extra step of having somebody comparable and they didn't do that when they had knew they had the burden by clear and convincing evidence and they knew we were posturing to say that i've only  that by the way but i don't think i'm a story link them up with saying this is a special case therefore they need to prove it more and i don't think that's actually would have been proper for me to say that because they have the burden of proof and we did not they had it by clear and convincing evidence and we did not i think is not so on this is important for the court to understand now because they've made that allegation but they didn't make it and i wanted to point out one of the thing if i may i say i'm out of time but if i could take thirty seconds to make  because i thought i'd see these documents the morning of the hearing in further preparation i was looking at them last week and i know there's another discrepancy besides the name if you look at the felony sentencing minutes which is which the court h hearing i believe it's very clear on the record yes vanished interpreter as well as in the psychiatric reports two of which three which means always had that he was always a spanish speaker so there's further discrepancies and once again if we only have a little more i noticed and  abstract of judgement to tell you what was what was pledged to either and in this case we only have those three things and one thing in between we have the felony sentencing minutes which is something that wasn't involved at marcos and something that wasn't in some of all the negatives and with the felony sentencing that's tell