points in emphasize certain points just argue no one which is the argument that the eighty four month sentence that was imposed upon my client was unreasonable and th evidence is in fact reliable and if it's not reliable it would be a violation of due process to allow that evidence to support an enhancement of sentence be it for manager supervisor or any other type of that particular information is unreliable now i realized what is the showing that you can make about its own reliability well first of all if you read  discussions that these individuals hand and these discussions that were had again were had in punjab he was never able to quote anything that my client said he would just say oh well they discuss during the discussion he was only able to even paraphrase what jack just said during any of these discussions and again he admits that these conversations were for the most part in punjabi maybe sometimes very little english and he really didn't understand the language client never was the driver and never left the car and never went up to any of these machines and never actually personally were involved in any any of that activity so he was i don't believe actually story that he was actually listened and that when he was asked well was he asked any questions did he say anything like the answer was no and in fact in the other instances where it's clear the judge concluded that my client gauged in these discussions if you look at the evidence as to what was court my name is daniel drake the u s attorney's office in phoenix arizona the defense a trial in this case was not at the events happened on some other date or that they didn't happen at all the defense here was that these things simply was not testimony which is a distinct contrast diametrical opposite to what the cooperating witnesses cheema paul said the jury considered all three witnesses testimony and ruled in favor of the government in other words they disregarded the testimony of jagdish singh and they found reliable and found probative beyond a reasonable doubt the evidence that came from the miles to fresh hall cheema and suck when your paul those witnesses describe dealing with the first with their argument regarding the sentencing as outlined in the court's finding which i've referenced in my brief at page forty five and six that away we're not your honor that the first count was a conspiracy count and that alleged events that ran from april of two thousand and one through may of two thousand and three  years two thousand and three and were here throughout and what their testimony described was an operation that ran quite frankly much like that in may of two thousand and two and september of two thousand thinking really could have been or say the level in which they were operating and planning this thing and those who are below that and with respect to that i would point to two different things first on one occasion as they were going around and picking say when they would come back to the vehicle and it would be used cards and the money in the receipts they put that in the material and jagdish would give them a bundle of cards according to one of the witnesses and so he for dissipated in doing that i guess there's really a number of other things that we could talk about on that in the sense that that the testimony was that jagdish would drive around and pick them up and when they were dropping them off he would look for machines at other places and that's referenced in the testimony of suckling or paul and also in russia paul cheema there are some other factors that were not specifically outlined in the court's ruling and that had to do with the issue of chevron store where these numbers were compromised and while it's not quite clear in the record how it was done there was adequate information in the record to show that it was usually possible that people could look over somebody's shoulder look at that number and get the pin number that there was cabling that connected these things together and it's computer cabling and it's easy to plug something in the middle of it and have it go straight through so would you classify being the organize stop for a second and explain if i can that particular aspect jagdish singh worked at the stores and he was the only one the evidence demonstrates who could have accomplished the compromises and the theory is the compromises occurred prior to the time that everybody showed up in the country to make the actual withdrawals and as you follow it through jagdish work to each of the five stores where this happened he admitted that and when he moved from fifty fifty west mcdowell's to fourteen o five north scottsdale road there were no more compromises at fifty fifty west mcdowell and when he left fourteen o five north scottsdale road there were timeframe or the main end of that period of time so as council we're only talking about manager supervisor which is a three level increase organizer or leader would be four levels but do we have to look at whether or not somebody else was regarded as the organizer we just look in terms of the sentencing of this individual as to whether that individual needs the organs of the supervisor or manager gauri i believe you only have to look at this particular individual that's all this before you with this point and if the if there is adequate evidence in the record to support the district court's findings what's your response to th trial judge had to go through all those aspects just as the jury had to make its own determination of what was proved and what was not and with respect to the issue of the punjabi language the way cheema described the conversations were that most of them were a mix of  punjabi in english but there was a little bit of give and take on these things you may recall during the testimony of jagdish seeing on occasion he would bypass the interpreter and give things in english and on occasion for part of his testimony actually testified in english so there's there is a bit of back and forth on this issue and i think that that it's the district court's determination as to the rollout of  objection on those issues and while the normal standard of a review was abuse of discretion in the formulation of the instructions or one of the court should have given the jury the indictment the plain error the standard would apply here and i suggest because of the defense there was defense counsel expressed reluctance i pointed out that there might be certain confusing issues that came from that in defense counsel said well i'll take that as an invitation and i would agree that it cannot be read at least there was no objection there was no