proposition that simply being a passenger and knowing of the contents of the car or vessel is not sufficient there was no evidence that mr apptit had any dominion and control and that wasn't sufficient and in our case in this case the mistress of pay that did do the driving he's a welder and that's what the evidence was he was not a fisherman he did not know where he was going he was aimlessly driving the boat navigate not navigating but driving the boat and he would wake up the captain to take over his non drug distribution purpose is equally supported by the evidence he the evidence was that he got on the boat because he wanted to ride north because he would earn a better living as a welder up here there was nothing in the record to indicate otherwise he walked away from the boat he had no ownership interest there was no evidence that he knew how to operate a g p s device sort of that his fingerprints were even on the g p s device the phones that the phone that he had had no evidence of drug distribution on it no connection to drug distribution so the cars that came to the porter to the hollister ranch region that day which a tenant an owner of from that ranch came in testify that people come for surfing and other reasons and they turn right around when they reach the security guard station and so the cars that came that day the idea that those are drug connected is just not true there's no evidence in the record sport that but more important there's no evidence that mr subpoenaed at any connection to those people so the evidence does not support that he was a knowing participate participant in a drug distribution conspiracy knew that there were the drugs on the boat and he wanted to get here illegally and he said to the other gentleman if you help me and my loving me be on your boat get to the united states illegally i'll help you get your boat with the cargo into the united states why isn't that sufficient that would be sufficient but that's not what exactly happened here it's not the case that he knew there were drugs on the boat before he got on the boat and so he got on the boat and the evidence in the record the evidence at trial was that while on the boat he was told that the bales contain marijuana the evidence was not that he was told but when he when mr subpoena drove the boat it's not necessarily for the purpose of assisting or aiding purposely the drug distribution frankly it's for the purpose of him for the non drug distribution finding so why isn't the participation the driving the boat knowing that the drugs were there coupled with the agent's testimony that in these types of endeavors there's always two people two people we needed a captain and when one person serves us the crew and maybe the captain recruited him and then that coupled with the discussion of the money in terms of how much it's made you know it's some juries may see it differently this jury didn't so what do you do with that sustain a conviction and here the record is baron that that is equal participate in the conspiracy and so what i say to that is the the maritime expert opinion that there should be two people at all times is not consistent with his own testimony that alien smuggling and drug smuggling are sensually the same and he testified that an alien smuggling all you need is one person the captain and the aliens can just sit there and so that's what he said at this trial and therefore for him to say that necessarily there always is two people in a drug smuggling vessel conspiracy operation is just not that and if that's correct then mr issa pedo would be asking himself well then what's my role here you know what why is he giving me this free ride ah it must be because he needs my assistance in getting this boat t requires two people to move it into the united states illegally since i'm not paying him why would he need my assistance well the evidence was that mr is a pig that's true  on the on the ship and it's a long ride from an sonata to the united states again not necessarily beyond a reasonable doubt supporting each of the essential elements necessary for both counts there is a non drug distribution purpose in him getting on the boat and coming to the united states it's not the case that a rational juror would beyond a reasonable doubt think that it was for a drug  distribution purpose i should also add that while inferences should be in favor that in the of the united states but that doesn't mean that the fact there was no fingerprint evidence connecting him to the drugs there's no evidence that he helped load the marijuana there's no evidence that he had a financial interest in the marijuana there's no evidence that he had any connection to anybody in drug distribution other than being on the boat and so while inferences are in the government's favor that doesn't change these facts to the government's favor it doesn't good morning may it please the court cassie palmer for the united states defendants challenges to his convictions rest on two faulty contentions first he basically asked the court to us the evidence and to draw all inferences in his favor of course that would turn the standard on its head where there are conflicting and princes the court is bound to consider them in favor of the verdict and in favor of the government but secondly he would have this court hold the defendant on a seven day voyage on a vessel that has opened bales of marijuana more than three thousand six hundred pounds was merely hitching a ride was merely present this court's holding and her losses should be instructive here and her loss of the court rejected many of the same authorities the defendant relies on here that's a maritime smuggling case and in so doing the court said this these types of  to look at different factors and the factors that the court looked at were the length of the voyage the obviousness of the contraband a relationship between the crew and the captain the inculpatory statements made after illegally he wouldn't want to be captured and worse the evidence that precludes mr the pater says i want to get into the united states i know this is illegal i'm going to hitch a ride on your boat if you need some help driving it i'm willing to do it i don't know nor do i want to meaning if we didn't run out of gas and we had to stop during the day he says we were going to stick together and they're talking about other smugglers they know and how much time they guy and trying to figure out what they're going to say to the authorities about what they're doing so in addition to the fact that this is the type of voyage that requires two people special agent heart was very specific on that fact and he said it more than once and the physical evidence shows that everything was situated for two people it's a seven day voyage on the sea you have someone who's driving but you also need someone bailing water fueling the boat doing all of these things but that's entirely consistent with just i will help out because i want to for a lift to the u s because that's why i'm going to get seen those but there's also evidence that you know during in aiding and abetting instruction the jury did it in aiding and abetting instruction your honor and so at the very least he was aiding and abetting and but the evidence is even stronger that he actually i mean given the they had a prior relationship in this captain that's one of the factors that the court looked at in polasek and defendant admitted that both to law enforcement and that was clear from his conversations with his  codefendant when he was being held they also knew a lot of other smugglers so it really was in the type of thing where given all of the inferences that must be drawn in the government's favor where he would have been surprised about what type of thing he was doing here to go to the united states and just going back to her loss or very quickly the court held on weaker evidence so there it was a speedboat that contain and there were three crew members and the court held that given the size of the boat which was small the obviousness of the contraband it was from that evidence it was reasonable to believe that any rational  member of the crew could have been aboard that vessel without knowing of the drugs and participating in a trance and therefore that was knowing participation and the cases cited favorably there have price and how expensive this type of cargo is a reasonable jury could have concluded that you're not going to trust someone with more than you know millions of dollars of cargo here is the cargo is worth one point five million dollars a reasonable jury could have concluded that the inference would be he knew what he was getting into drug traffickers don't allow people who they don't know to be on such a long voyage to start a fight and requires two people secondly just a rational jury in a pond a smuggling type of operation could have found that the value of the drugs meant that these crewmembers wouldn't be trusted on such and would bring the people in who didn't who weren't part of the conspiracy  weren't part of a conspiracy and the senate was profiting from it he needed to get there he needed to get the drug safely that he needed to get the boat safely there even if you believe he wasn't being paid that he was being paid in kind for for bringing it there he was just going to be able to come to the united states even if you believe even if the jury believed that that isn't in kind that he is receiving something in value and he does have a vested interest in getting the drugs to the united states  evidence of course was that he was also getting paid but even if if you draw the inference and believe what he said the court should still affirm finally as far as the recordings there is some reference to it and i just want to quickly touch on that topic it should not be disputed at all that the defendant's own admissions would come in and that his co defendants statements were offered for a non hearsay purpose which is to to provide context they're not offered for their truth or not testimonial much as this court's cases in the jailhouse informant contacts where the defendant and the statements come in as admissions the  statements of the other person would come into pride context which is a non person a purpose so based upon all of this the government's admits that there is ample evidence the physical evidence is circumstantial evidence evidence of the expert that this required two people that he was absolutely necessary and defendant's admissions both to law enforcement and the admissions to join his conversation with his codefendant and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and i unlike the maritime case the government relies on there were no tax takes here to avoid arrest which is what happened with sanchez mata did not attempt to evade capture arrest sanchez mandalas fingerprints were not found no long term or familial relationship was established the same is true here there is no long term or familial relationship between mr rodriguez and misters of paida casualty association is not enough that's what the ninth circuit with this court's jury instructions say the yes there was an aiding and abetting instruction but aiding and abetting requires that there would be a specific intent of to facilitate the specific crimes charge and that's not the case here yes he sometimes drove the boat but that doesn't mean that was with the specific intent to facilitate the construe the conspiracy to distribute or the possession with intent to distribute it's frankly for the space it's equally true that it was for the specific intent to facilitate his own entry in the united states the codefendant statements in that recording the government admits are not substantive evidence there for context and so if they're not for substantive evidence evidence well then they can't be evidence for this court to rely on to sustain a conviction thank you ron thank you