you may please the court counsel your honour's this case as as i've stated in my brief is about whether or not an isolated incident of selling cocaine can be used to group can be used under a conviction and an additional relevant conduct of pass up on a different conspiracy can be used to enhance that sentence and this court has recognized  over and over again that under one b one three the government has a fearsome tool to enhance unconvicted conduct to use on convict conduct to enhance sentences and the crux of our argument here your honour's is that the district court judge reiner used two factors he stated two factors on the on the record that there was a common accomplice in both of these cases and a common drug and it's uncontroverted that there was a common drug might my client sold cocaine he stole cocaine for years and the second conspiracy consisted only of cocaine all powerful before this person who's the confidential informant was working for the government that person has been supplying ackles with cocaine right eccles right the buyer correct and that's been going on for you know year and a half or so january twenty twenty five so it doesn't strike me is that much of a stretch to say that there is a common course of conduct here he's working with this other person the in the cocaine business this time he happens to be a way of helping out the person who's normally his source but they're all kind of in the business together you know i do happen to agree with you on accompli because you can't be an accomplice if you're working for the government and course eventually the confidential informant is working for the government that it doesn't strike me is not too much of a stretch to say that this is the same course conduct it's only a couple weeks later they're just chugging along and i completely agree that temporal these are these are very close but under the case law there has to be temporal proximity there has to be regularity and there has to be similarity and i think regularity and similarity is where that this fails the similarity it's the same drug it's the same people it's the same area it's the same same same and that the only thing i disagree with you on your honor is the same people and the same people are involved i'm not i'm not disagreeing on that fact is it so magic that they've changed roles slightly this is all kind of the three musketeers all for one one for all sort of business and i understand that but out of the case are o'boyle actually in the statute itself common accomplices it doesn't say common people but this is an isolated incident and and the court has held the floor where isolated incidents can't be grouped together with a larger conspiracy that the others in your saying it's an isolated incident what required the ounces which is compared to that the additional relevant conduct is a very small i think in grams it was two hundred thirty five grams i understand that there were actually two incidents here but it was kind of i don't want to say it was only one incident but that the first incident was an entered auction to the facilitating of the eight ounces and we don't know if this was going to be regular in nature if this was just a one time deal hey you need a down says i can get you eight ounces there's no there's no evidence in the record that this eight ounces was going to be used to be redistributed i think there was evidence in the record that he was furnishing the confidential informant with cocaine for the confidential informant to feed his network and redistribute i think we have a different situation here but there's nothing in the record of that it's just that the confidential informant was was interested and nine well really eight ounces but the one ounce of the introductory something i mean is it really that far off base and because of the two point five kilos is spread over this two and a half year period i mean i'm not sure mr eccles the biggest drug dealer i've ever seen that you know that that would suggest that that kind of dimension of stealing is actually common that matters in that two point five kilos over two hundred over two and a half years it comes out to about eight ounces a week is that is that which is something like yeah i mean i think and i agree there's a casual relationship between this event and the conspiracy i'm not denying that but it doesn't bear a strong enough relationship i think that's where the fails under the test i think that if if if we would know that mr eccles was supplying him to redistribute them then i think we're in a different situation if if we knew that mr echo's and enough were doing this at the same time that the conspiracy was going on i think we're in a different situation again we have a clear break here and i know that there's case law that three years prior can be brought in and all that i'm not denying that we have a clear break where on july fourteenth the old conspiracy stop there was no entrance into that new conspiracy and then on august first we have a buyer seller relationship and that's it and i'll save the rest accomplice so once he becomes a government agent right in the correct under the law i cannot be accomplice if he's acting as an agent of the government right whatever i think what the guidelines get at when they talk about an offensive all the in the same actors and in this case the whole reason why you know you don't want to read accomplice as accomplice basically because it's the early that the two and a half year course of conduct is what gets you have the two point five kilos so that you wind up with whatever it is two and three quarters heroes for the relevant conduct do you need those same i mean what do you think there's any difference between talking about a common scheme or plan and a common course of conduct well or similar but i mean the guidelines separate that by and or either a common scheme or or plan you know same course of conduct so maybe they're just chatting maybe they're not really drawing a distinction or maybe they are and i would be under or as you just stated it would be easier and but i think that both qualify in this case the defendant dealt with the company to inform it as his supplier it was the defendant who contacted the company to inform and said i have another supplier they can sell us cocaine as much as we want for thirteen hundred dollars an ounce so based on that the confidential informant set up a b for you so i think tonight i think one of the defendant had was motivated by his own motives which included the fact that here was his he had a supplier that was a study supplier if he helped him obtain another source of cocaine that would make it more likely in the future when the defender wanted to purchase cocaine he would be he would have cocaine to sell him in addition he could have thought it was all if i arrange if i facilitate this deal the next cocaine purchase i made from the confidential informant i get a discount on the price since i called him out so there he had motives to facilitate this transaction based on the prior conduct that's why it's relevant conduct and as to i'm not really sure what the defendant's  it is in regards to when he argued that there's no evidence that the cia was going to redistribute the cocaine to someone else i'm not sure how that advances their argument but nonetheless the defendant knew at the time you certainly a commercial amount of cocaine nine ounces price yeah wholesale and i think that the district court judge made a reasonable estimate of the drug quantity it defend its own statement he purchased anywhere from one to nine ounces per week and the estimate was based on the most conservative possible estimate which would be one ounce every three weeks in case there was potentially certain weeks where  will form it didn't have a product available so based on that the district court made a very reasonable conservative estimate of the drug quantity and it's our position that the district court did not clearly err in calculating the drug quantity attributed common course of conduct but he certainly analyzed it in the record as a common plan or scheme he states that there's common accomplices which i don't believe there are and then he points to the commonality in the drug so under the was certainly that they were pointing toward a common plan or scheme and common course of conduct wasn't even brought up at the district court level certainly not substantively brought up so while i don't want to argue whether or