mister wilson was a drug dealer propensity argument and other you know and i think this case really comes down to a question of how this court is going to enforce th is that required part so on the evidence or issue there were basically two different grounds that the evidence could have been admitted under one was backgrounder rest yesterday and the other one was more a sort of standard form for the furthest as you know that that's for a writer well i guess the question i have is you know where we draw the line between what is fact what do you know what is truly background evidence and what is for you know really very incriminating evidence that may otherwise not come in because it does sort doesn't tell us very much about the possession of drugs in the possession of the day yes it's one day in time and you can say well we know he you probably figure he's got a home base where he's leaving from where he stores drugs and or weapons sure we can and it sure to finish the thought they observed him leaving that house going to another location and coming back in so i mean it's a related point i on the other hand is driver's license somewhere else but let's let's accept that his clothes are very says he stays there the drugs are not found on top of this clothes the drugs are not found next to this man all the drugs were found inside tied to me there's other people in the home and that proves the case show the officer said we saw the the the woman that leased the car that he was driving  them myself usually the drugs are and the gun are very top tightly connected and usually they're very it's very apparent that person had control and that's not i  that's not the case here as just one other question about the background evidence points i know you argue and well under under four hundred and forty dollars which the separate separate basis for admission that there has to be a sort of rule for so i think i pretty much covered everything i wanted to say here where you can reserve your time for d a bottle and i'll come back and speak again thank you very much thank you  similar of your morning ma'am please record me stan brock i represent the united states of america in this matter we are asking the court to affirm the conviction and rulings of the district court in this case and if i may i'll just jump right in and based on my colleague's arguments i believe the more pressing issue is is the background evidence for the mines drug deal  as background evidence and in the alternative for proper purposes under rule four or b we would ask the court to follow the charmers case i believe i'm pronouncing that correctly which we cited in our brief  regarding the admission of this evidence as background evidence there this court has recently held that it needs to be a close temporal spatial or cultural causal proximity between the other actor  the the non charged evidence with the charge defenses and that is exactly the case here and that is exactly the evidence that the jury heard in this case  wilson was charged with possessing drugs that were found during a search warrant on april th the very day before d officers observed him leave that house in a rental car to go straight from the house to conduct a drug deal with a confidential informant who sold the confidential informant cocaine cocaine base that day the following day they actually cue to the search warrant based on that and prior controlled buys that the done for mister wilson turn up they find drugs and a firearm in the residence but prior to the execution of the search warrant officer saw mister wilson leave the residence again in the same rental car that he used the day before and travel just approximately a half mile from the house where he was sitting in a parking lot when officers encountered him there and i think this fact is very important for the court's analysis regarding the background evidence he was found with almost ten thousand dollars in cash almost a one thousand dollars of which was controlled by money from the very day before so for that that evidence to be relevant and introduced to the jury they needed to hear the full story where where that money came from the day before when mister wilson sold drugs to a confidential informant so i would note that in terms of the intrinsic argument the government's position is that it was certainly close temporally it was the day before this court's precedent has has admitted much older intrinsic evidence than that so i would argue that the temporal proximity was the most recent one that's correct and they didn't use why did why didn't they use the other three in other words is there some limiting principle that we can draw from the way you decide to utilize certain evidence and not utilize all the evidence well and i and i think both our decision to use that and the district court's ruling get at the questions that were asked to my colleague regarding whether there's a balancing principle involved for in terms of evidence because in the district court's ruling he expressed lee found after hearing evidence related to the suppression motion that the buys maybe from from earlier in march which were a little bit more temporarily attenuated from when the search warrant was executed those may not be under this this court's precedents temporally related and then properly admitted as as intrinsic evidence so i think there was an implicit balancing of the prejudice versus probative nature when the court looked at look ok we're not going to admit all for d control by as we're going to admit it one evidence of one from the day the very day before we executed a search warrant and not only that but the other commonalities in facts that were shared between the two days the same rental car by the way run it in his girlfriend's name controlled by money on his person two cell phones i mean these were all in disha of drug trafficking and i think by that that limiting that the district court did it was an implicit balancing and yes i think the court can take that into consideration when when deciding the intrinsic issue when you're when you sit down see how your friends might question about the whether we should be doing that as part of customarily do you know as part of the background analysis i am your honor and i don't i don't have any cases where where that has been done so i'm not i'm not saying that that is the rule that this court follows i just am saying that in this case i think the district court implicitly did that when the he admitted excuse me when the district court admitted just one out of the four controlled by that was so close in time to when the evidence was found during a search warrant and so your honor my my review that's my argument regarding the intrinsic nature i think this this evidence was clearly intrinsic and the jury heard testimony from a  sergeant with the michigan state police who was offered an admitted as an opinion witness about what drug dealers do to distance themselves from their crimes and all everything that mister wilson did in this case was consistent with that officers experience about what drug dealers try to do st they use a house that that may not necessarily be easily tied to them right as as my colleague pointed out his his dress was at his place and was somewhere else so they stash their drugs where someone else might might be on the hook they use rental cars they use multiple cell phones they stash the drugs in a location where it can't easily be attributed to them as as my colleague would have hoped you know not n his nice stand next to his driver's license or his passport so i think the fact that the evidence from the day before that that was introduced it was proper because of the issues that mister wilson was putting in print of the jury those weren't my drugs i didn't live there it was someone else and i certainly didn't have the intent to do so if i could stuart sort of move just to briefly address the four a four b issue i don't think it was i think you funny our other side would think agree with me my right that if we would read your background we don't have to reach this issue that's absolutely correct your honor and that would be the government's argument is that the court not me not even get to for a for b because this is squarely under trauma i believe a twenty is sufficiency of the evidence under this court's precedents jordan and william specifically because a rule twenty nine dollars motion was not made judge a motion for judgment of acquittal in the district court this court's review is limited to whether manifest miscarriage of justice occurred and it simply did not in this case there any any evidence that would suggest these were not his drugs earlier they were found and shared all but was there any evidence at all that they would be his not your honor from the government's standpoint there was not i mean the i think a good piece of evidence to discuss in response to that question is the fact that mail was found in the home it was addressed in mister wilson's name and in his girlfriend's name but in no one else's name so you know there weren't utility bills or anything else that would suggest there was another individual another adult living in that home other than mister wilson and his girlfriend and there was no evidence his girlfriend did not testify there was you know nothing regarding her is in the record and so the only evidence in the record points to mister wilson who admitted staying at that house with his girlfriend and their small daughter and addition to the two the other evidence that's already been referenced here today pointing to the fact that he lived there or stayed there on occasion and certainly possessed those guns and intended or excuse me drugs and gone and intended to distribute those  think there was no for instance there was no evidence that the cia saw him with a gun during the controlled by from the day before the government's argument at trial was that drug dealers use guns to protect their drugs in a stash house and the pictures that were admitted of of the search warrant showed that the drugs were found on one side of this in a cabinet on one side of the sink and the gun was found the cabinet on the other side of the sink so the argument in closing was he was keeping a stolen illegally possessed firearm in close proximity to his drugs to protect his his stash so but your honor is correct there was no a analysis or fingerprint analysis done on the on the firearm that you know would have suggested it was it was mister wilson's but argument was more tied to the drug dealing aspect of it  anything further was the mura your honour's have any additional questions for me i would rest on the arguments made in our brief and i would have nothing further thank you ok apparently no further questions drugs away from restaurants on one day some home transit leave it to possessing drugs another day there's a division between the distribution and the possession so i  limited purposes and not and that has nothing to do with the gun so under any theory none of this evidence which for for your background has anything to do with this hand and simper out her it had to impact the jury t distance from from one another i agree but but it's but that if it it it seems to me you have a stronger argument that you know especially thank you mister table men for taking this case out of the criminal justice act we realize there's a degree of sacrifice that goes along with that and you are of course providing a great service to the us wilson but also to the system that march so we really do appreciate your willingness to take this and other matters on under the access but again i thank both of you