factors that weren't embrace measures verdict but also in light of a great fan found a district court can now consider grounds for departure and it seems to me that's what judge to the scene was really i have no problem with that i was just wondering about whether the fellow is a title to get out right now members part of the appeal my impression of outrageous government conduct is that it's a category that has been did by words and some of the cases and it's basically an empty set the most outrageous government conduct is never categorized by the courts it's outrageous government conduct as i recall there's this one case where the government set a beautiful woman to seduce a guy and after he fell in love with her that sellers go and and that were not racist i don't remember seeing anything outrageous i don't think you had a case that was like this case where courts said it was outrageous that you know you're on a that's true defense for is settled with the fact that there's this doctrine out there about racist conduct and very little case law again the government had to athens to go three times to sell its aging to gun before mr bell finally produced that first one but there's nothing like jacobson where there is no evidence that this farmer was even in the indictment that it was the very end of the fence and it's mr bell had them in the car he was driving the day he was finally arrested it was the day he was supposed to participate in this home invasion robbery and he showed up and was arrested and to specific instructions and we know he committed well i don't know that he committed a felony and xico i don't know what he did in mexico when he shot this man in the chest it would have been a felony had he done it here yet he disappeared for a while and he was in the hospital pattern sound the ball was in the hospital and asked mr bell to come visit him and mr bell did and apparently another conversation took place there or after seeing that i was released from the hospital more happened you know about but at any rate it was it was sound according to the record kept elevating the severity of the felony in question because mr bell did sell a gun to the a t f agent that was the first farm that was involved he wasn't arrested at that time he could have been selling a gun but he wasn't there was a ninety four c town charge but that was dismissed by the just for grabbing the district court acquitted mr ballen that count so the only count of conviction does not have a mandatory minimum although i don't have the guidelines tried before me even if we will go with just the basic hands level which would be offense level twenty four and the defendants criminal history category which i believe was the highest criminal history category the to might not be resolved was actually with the three at this point until hope you know is six months could be a little more supreme court might decide to give us a little guidance they have before yeah it could be quite a while was deficient egregious as to meet that standard in the kind of that you have in this case which at most amounts to passive tolerance of an unsavory informant simply doesn't rise to the level of outrageous government conduct i think it's important to note that both of which we have any one site closely in point that well yes john of the case that government did something like that well there are cases where the government did worse than case that the court referred to earlier the simpson case where our judge hadn't found that the f b i and the government had engaged in deliberate ignorance of the informants continued sexual contact with the defendant and continued drug use with the defendant and this court found that even that even if you look or ignorance did not rise to the level of outrageous government conduct outrageous government conduct requires some ferment of direction by the government and for that amounts to basically engineering a crime from start to finish and in the two cases where the courts have found outrageous government conduct the government has basically been on both ends of the defendant for example in the tweet case the government pressured the defendant into manufacturing this and found i mean provided the supplies provided a manufacturing appeal simply don't fit within that view first of all sound of all the informant did not ask bill to visit him we don't the sound of all the informant did mention to  undercover agent attempted to verify whether sound of all had in fact gain gauged in that activity and was unable to do so but in any event and that conduct of the informant doesn't relate to his interaction with the defendant directed by the informant or directed by special agent car again when viewed in the light most favorable to the government the facts indicate that special agent part was the one who directed the special agent car and the informant tries to identified the defendant now to the undercover agent it was with respect to selling firearms grandstanding it was during the course of the investigation during the first three meetings in between the first three meetings with the defendant that and special agent car indicated at that initial meeting that that was one of the types of crimes for which the a t f was interested in receiving information from the informant fast forward  meeting on may thirtieth where the informant is wired up a hold on you're telling me the whole story here and it's not focusing on my question let me make my question clear it looks to me as though one way of looking at this completely they had the balls idea bill goes along with it is that right that is not correct your honor sound of all involvement in the home invasion robber of conviction and second that the government did not enthused him to do so in any way and i would like to make one other correction to the record which is there was a statement that there is no evidence  in the defendant's background and that's not correct one of the defendants prior felony was robbery with a firearm and that's reflected in paragraph seventy nine of the pre sentence report it's also  court believed that was the count of the jury was never officially counted but you're correct the jury was not able to come to agreement on on the three more serious charges were hung with instructed sentence or two just so i don't lose it why is there evidence that bell was predisposed to possess those two guns independently all of the meetings with special agent car the defendant through his words and actions indicated that he was willing to continue to sell guns to special agent carr and the fact that there were multiple meeting and that he did not immediately provide the gun doesn't necessarily indicate either a lack of predisposition or that he was reluctant in any sense and needed to be persuaded by the government in fact bell south on a hands no problem i can get you the guns he doesn't he doesn't ever expressed especially your car that he doesn't want to possess guns that he doesn't like firearms and he doesn't want to be involved in fight with firearms at all he only comes up