errors all related to the issue of witness credibility and all taken either individually or collectively depriving mr alona of a fair trial i would like to first address the errors related to the exclusion of evidence concerning the informant in this case mr vasquez who was the government's star witness the boys go yes your honor the gulf war veteran when you look at the district court's decision to exclude mr vasquez his prior conviction for drug trafficking and the proffered evidence that he was still dealing drugs while working with the d n a one has to look at in context and there are two important facets of context number one is mr alone his defense mr long as defense was going to be and was that mr vasquez planted the drugs in his parents backyard that's how they got there the other important facet is mr vas testimony and how he presented himself as the record shows the court permitted the government to elicit testimony from mr vasquez that he was something of a scholar a businessman a gulf war veteran counsel spoke no more than a sentence in response to the government's arguments at that point and said and in substance simply because he simply repeated his prior argument which had been rejected by the course  troubles me that your argument is that these convictions were over ten years old on thinks would have on that basis alone your honor they may be excluded but they need not be it is a matter within the district court's discretion but our position is the district court under these circumstances abuse that discretion under six o nine the district court could have let that conviction in based on a finding that is probity substantially out weights prejudice despite being more than ten years old under rule fo the bottom line was your honour's that the jury could have heard from somebody with a drug conviction and with evidence that he was still engaging in drug dealing and then presented with a question might this person have planted drugs and stead they were presented with the gulf war veteran the businessman to scholar and if you presented to that jury the question is it reasonable to think this person might have been planted drugs it was a very very different  exclusion argument is that under the circumstances because this evidence was so central to mr lowness defense because mr vazquez this testimony his credibility was so central and because mr vasquez abs counsel proffered that he had witnesses who had said that mr vasquez was engaged in ongoing drug dealing activities that that created a tie to the old conviction that the court is referring to the addition and the point i want to make is that the trial court said well if you opens the door then this might be different i think the trial court recognisance some cases a person's testimony is so directed towards presenting themsel driven snow that it opens that door past the permeable line of rule six zero nine the other point with respect to that your honor is that there still will for a for b and this evidence was still properly admitted under will for a for b to demonstrate mr va opportunity and his knowledge of drug dealing activities both of which were necessary to explain how want to gulf war veteran and businessman have drugs or know how to get them to plant and stallone as yard w contemporaneously and this was with who it was relevant your honor because it showed that mr vasquez had access to drugs and it showed that he had one on one as hard as four four become him as opportunity or o no question your honor but for a for b also serves as a reasonable guideline for when evidence regarding a witness should come in of other acts of a witness and that would be the framework with that within which this evidence should are yardsticks t two there is the document indicating that it was expunged because probation was terminated successfully and it makes reference to california penal code one two zero three point four which i believe indicates rehabilitation is a reason to have the conviction expunged with respect to the forum for b argument defendant conceded in his opening brief at page thirty nine that that argument was not specifically raised in front of the district court instead a number of theories were advancing the district the clarification the district court in this case meticulously parsed through the repeated proffers of the defendant made as to his evidence that he was trying to get in against mr vasquez and in parsing through that evidence the district court allowed most of she allowed the evidence where it could be presented that this d i had attempted to get the defendant to deal drugs and the defendant refused causing the c i to be angry she said that was entirely permissible however the two particular witnesses that  ent proffered never were called to testify despite the fact that they were specifically allowed they were not called by the defendant in this case the defense of the defendant himself testified to those facts that he had refused to deal drugs on fo to continue his relationship with the d e a s any any hostility that he has towards mr that mr low now you can cross examined toward all of that and she reminded the defendant of that and the defendant we called to do just that and never did didn't ask any of those questions so what the district court excluded in this case was actually quite limited she said you can't bring in the blanket allegation that he's a known drug dealer or that he has some purported belief that his relationship with the and it was the government's belief and always has spent that those were simply false allegations by the defendant to dirty up the c i there was no adequate profit made nor was any real evidence presented that the c i was currently engaged in drug dealing the defendant did not oppose it in writing and i think hearing regarding mr exclusion the defense offered no argument other than well it seems unfair that the government is taking contradictory position you know the government cited to the roosevelt didn't case l case but as you do point out there is a long standing precedent for applying the rules of evidence as their cited and the district court i believe did not abuse her discretion in meticulously applying those rules of evidence to the facts of this case with respect to whether or not any error were were dealing friend of his to be aware of the informant because he had discovered that he'd been working with the feds and that he had caused the feds to show up at his property and searches house and to stop calling the defendant because the feds were out there and that the feds would be monitoring the friend's phone because mr vasquez had provided the phone to the friend with a very good record of conversations in this case now on top of that the drugs were found at mr lomas house not in the location that his mother testified they were thrown over the fence and with his own identification in it inside that bag they found another digital scale they found bundles of money throughout the defendant's room totaling twelve thousand dollars and the defendant's explanation for that in cross examination you know he made a witness or another even a third person had an opportunity to do the crime of which the defendant is accused the rule for a for me says very clearly that it relates to things are not relevant to admissible to prove character of a person