your honour's patrick brown appearing for the appellant jack reed the it's clear from the record in this case that at the trial the jury was confused with respect to the issue of whether or not there was more than one conspiracy and we know this from the series of notes that the jury passed up while they were on in their gauge in their deliberations it didn't matter judge of what we believe that it does your honor because w is the government's pointed out on the points well taken that generally if you have a a conspiracy like this where you've got one individual running through a single defendant trial that usually it's a non issue but respectfully when i would believe it is an issue in this case because of the fact that it be pretty hard to deny that the jury was confused in the nature of the question showed precisely what their confusion was namely there was this period of time when mr reed was incarcerated for three years when clearly he was out of the business if you will and this walker that the other individual who it's alleged he conspired with before he was incarcerated stated two things not only did he was he selling drugs on his own during that period of time but there was also approximately one year out of a three year period when he was in atlanta and he wasn't selling drugs at all so so clearly there was a there was if there was an earlier conspiracy it had to have stop and also their first conspiracy there were they were selling twenty dollar quantities of drugs and then later on there were these allegations of there were all these other individuals involved kilogram quantities and all the rest of it so you've got the two we would submit to conspiracies now is the fundamental difference here in this case then you see in the single defendant double conspiracy you should type cases in this regard here we've got a question which conspiracy did the jury convict and did they convict on the first conspiracy the second conspiracy or or both of them and did all twelve jurors convict or and and everything or is it a situation where six jurors convicted on the first one and maybe six convicted on the second one and then that goes to the to the drug quantity to go to your question your honor if if if some of the jurors only convicted on the the first conspiracy with the twenty dollar quantities and then some other jurors convicted on the second conspiracy and all round i just i know where you're going about how do you get on the case law case after case after case in which we have said that single multiple conspiracy analysis does not apply to the trial i sing with and well i think judge when i looked at those cases you agree that those cases seem to be to  that they say what you just said you had it all question about that but when you look at them they seem like they're they're concerned more with shorter periods of time as a situation where you've got the single conspiracy here where you've got going from the one nine hundred ninety s up to twenty twelve with this with this difference this three year time split i'm just thinking that there's a real issue here of what did you get convicted of did was it really a unanimous verdict or were the jurors split some on one some on the other and then and then how do you get to the drug away what what if what if there wasn't a unanimous vote that the first conspiracy with the twenty dollar packages is his is what he was have your honor i can understand your point i guess the concern that that that i have judge just when you look at those jury notes the way the the way the jurors kept going back to the earlier period in the subsequent period and there instructed in response to the note is i guess all we can ask for the jurors they come up with the notes they come up with but the the judge persisted in talking about the conspiracy charge in the indictment when did the jurors seem to be saying monica richards united states of america on this appeal i disagree i believe that the way that the jurors notes were written did relate to time the first snow related to what does continuing to mean that's in the record of page five seventy three and then the note regarding the hypothetical that they posed for the scenario that they posed is continue to act for the duration of a conspiracy like and then they continued so the question really related to time not who was involved or when it started or stopped or what happened with regard to the scope of the conspiracy it really reading that the two notes was does it mean that we have to have evidence that in one nine hundred ninety he was dealing cocaine and in two thousand and twelve he was doing cocaine and further duration continuously throughout that he was doing it when we know there was a break in the action as far as mr reed was concerned when he was in jail but he picked up right really left off there was no indication that he  stopped or had no that he that he stopped and he said i'm no longer involved in this matter he went right back to it with his cousin who it by that point was significantly older he was sixteen when they started now he's been doing a little bit as he could while his cousin was in jail and came back right to it with mr reid supplying in the role of supplier and that was a role that mr walker then also developed into but that doesn't change not none of that testimony you know that evidence is any indication that mr reid himself other than the fact that he was caught and put in jail was out of it for a minute there so same thing as if somebody had moved away same thing as if somebody had laid low that's in the fourth circuit case they wanted to protect their  three a is the property fifty two specifically and that doesn't require as much that requires that it was used to commit or facilitate one quote of the statute specifically for that matter in my brief it page i'm sorry my means of addressing it here your honor is that would be as you going to point out every new law on the circuit but that here this is wouldn't be the case to do it because here we have a substantial connection here under no matter what standard we're looking at we have we have the facilities the homes being used to commit transactions to bundle money to discuss further activity so we don't have the concern that comes up in an administrative context eighty one sorry so two questions first do you know what the u s attorney's offices were armed justice what their position has been in connection with that particular question outside opinion on that issue here that the manner in which it's being raised now meant means that it wasn't addressed below in the district court so i don't see that that's possible here unless i'm misunderstanding it wasn't address fifty of our brief guy that was with assistance from our forfeiture unit in the office when i responded to this point in the brief that the first circuit did the same in united states versus held in men fifty three  identical language in the civil forfeiture requires substantial connection but no determination here because whatever the exact degree connection of required the evidence provided to just a court in this case a part of the forfeiture so that wouldn't be unprecedented on top of that there was papers right and it was also which i should say was it the book is in the papers and the government also produce witnesses on that issue and we argued about their reps we can have supplemental letter breeze from each of you on this to mother to say we can do by the end of the week two to five aspects of the record that deal with these concerns ok thank you and i judge you know more than four pages long double space thank you jack transmitted by friday at twelve noon electronically file yes absolutely copies to opposing counsel and you can discuss it before then you might be able to join together in one document or a de facto stipulation regarding the record and if you need to attach any any part of the record that's not in the appendix that would be much appreciated thank you judge thank you very much