mr smith good morning your honor and happy new year please the court my name is william smith i represent mr moments in this matter i would like to start off by the government in its brief  been proved i'm making no such suggestion at all other words that is to say not suggesting they would have had to bring in to have brought in a certificate of analysis or live testimony with respect to that issue but what i a the conspiracy as outlined in the indictment in this case made it very clear that the conspiracy for which mr mullins was being charged was i would call it the ohio street conspiracy which  the amounts i believe there were two separate quantities would have been well in excess of the twenty eight threshold in the statute no question about that but the question is whether it was actually proved that he was involved in that conspiracy and i would suggest one when we look at the record here i would agree with it with my brother in so far as i think i don't mean to speak for him but i think he's suggesting that the statements that my client give my client the indication from the trial record was my client had cooperated and gave pretty extensive statements to the to the agents and but out of all of those statements i would suggest it was so vague so nebulous as to what she was actually talking about and there was much sort of back and forth on that at trial i think the parties both recognize but i think that the salient thing  brought in you could call you could say an expert but certainly a law enforcement one of the agents had asked about you know basically what does that mean and i'm not suggesting in any way shape or form that that was not relevant i'm not suggesting that for the court would be whether that alone would suffice to get over the threshold of having whether it was legally sufficient evidence this was ball for about ten weeks as i recall a fair amount of even if i'm wrong on that point again it goes back to what i said earlier which is whether or not there was that mutuality piece of the conspiracy of twenty crims more than there are two separate very large quantities so there is no question that there was evidence that he was a weird the you know there was this group of men identified as the dominican side trial the government had also produced a witness who you know lives there and definitely she certainly did what was going on and  if she was a user and that he had bought repeated li from them and then was engaged in selling on his own there's no question the government proved you know as to that one transaction that he was selling on his own no question about it not here to su disjointed what they worked with what they had and so what about the evidence of of arrangements with them as to whether they would take away his customers or not take away his customers that's just that there was equally consistent with him having conducted his own operation as it were that he was using he was buying from them extensively and then selling on his home on his own foolishness and that being the case that mutuality is not he he does in these sort of general sense but he does not in terms of when you look at the case law as i set forth in the brief that he did on this evidence no he did it it was not sufficient danger here your honor is is to answer your question with a question is it well but it's equally possible that you have people who are buying from very large conspiracies this size larger size who are users there's no question it was undisputed he was a user he was a junkie and who are buying and then to support their own how that are selling on their own volition and that's the danger here in this case so what you're basically saying is that you can't be  not it was not if there was that as a piece to that puzzle you say they took his customers away but that doesn't you know geographically they were all operating in the same places where there was nothing to indicate that when we end up with at best for you variance that made no difference in other words they they prove the twenty eight grams i don't think you are contesting that good morning a friend for the united states the evidence was characterized as disjointed i don't know that i'd characterize it as just jointed i mean the core of the case was the definitive statement and then there was a controlled transaction it proved an example of what the defendant had been doing the evidence from the defendant statement is strong evidence of a conspiracy the amount of drugs being purchased five thousand dollars per week that's not a user's amount sometimes used by a five thousand dollars per day he said he had four to five customers that he was supplying he called himself a runner for the organization and i think you're correct that has a simple meaning that i think everyone understand which is middle man and conspiracy charged in the end i don't know if he mentioned two people in fish in his statement as the people that he dealt with perry profit the witness testified that at the one hundred ohio street in fish work there when he did the future transaction but it is the person he talked to on the phone fish is the person who arrived with the drugs so he's calling the order  phone for that organisation one hundred sixteen times over the ten week period so that evidence this time him to that house perry profit testified he was seen at the one hundred ohio least you show variance and kerio variance it matter it doesn't matter so long it doesn't matter so long as we proved it was this conspiracy with these domini s so we don't have to prove those things it's not it would it is it would only be harmful if we prove some other conspiracy entirely but my point is the evidence shows that we did prove this conspiracy and whether we got every detail as to quantity and drugs i think we all are agreeing doesn't matter but we did prove that it's related to the ohio street drug activity which bullet in fish worked for which the defendant