general deterrence impermissibly created the appearance that mr prince uses national origin and ethnicity played a role in fashioning this that is with respect to the general deterrence as a sport has repeatedly and clearly stated that while general deterrence is undoubtedly a proper consideration in imposing a sentence a defendant's ethnicity may not be taken into account when selecting a particular sentence to achieve that general deterrence and which i know must satisfy the appearance of justice so even without upswell bias that is it is that may be appearance of bias that is the concern here so in line for example the district court stated that his seventeen decision was to quote to generally others particularly others and he had a community because this case received a certain amount of publicity in that community and i want the warrant to go out from this point room that if people want to come to the us they had better abide by our by our laws as this court said whole a whole new recess and i anticipate that would then raise the possibility of a judge at the time of re sentencing would have to take into account all of the facts as of the current moment of the reset and saying and i just like that because i've seen this before i don't know anything about what may or may not have transpired in your client's life or situation since then but considering that the original sentencing the judge took into account  the fact that he participated in in violent enforcement on behalf of mr chalabi a while he was detained i would presume that you have independently undertaken an evaluation of whether he would decision last week in webb where there was substantial evidence of the defendant's actual knowledge but the defendant was in fact denying been naing having had knowledge so in the end whether for example it was that it was the phone marketing scheme where the defendant had testify that mr kurtz you say was silent during that drive and it was that that silence in part that the government relied on in the court relied on and in giving the conscious of points instruction were there some additional facts there was well that the government pointed to for example that i know he was carrying the slot machine inside and he knew that gambling and this kind of rigging there is a basis for saying that he there is a high probability that something illegal regarding gambling was going avoidance instruction in fact if the government needs to show that there is that or that or the before the instruction there needs to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt a rational jury could find and you could use to base a decision that the defendant was aware of the high probability of this question is whether he could just knowing the casinos there were many people who could use a wasn't in atlantic city for his own fights there were all these other people who surrounded us and the mastermind of a scheme whether there were going does not speak english so they have that they probably had some shared russian that's not what you say st language and i don't believe it's melbourne's st language you know school struck us odd that there was absolutely no conversation that there seemed to be no doubt that it was a silent drive from new york to substitution counsel in the middle of proceedings in our brief we raise the district court's abuse of its discretion in not permitting retained counsel mr nimitz or one month a gentleman to address defense sense and especially in light of the sixty five year sentence that defendant was basing a time how many how many counsel did he retain over the course of these proceedings accounting t part and in the context of each case that obviously has to be determined individually and separately relevant to what the defendant is facing what he's asking who who is  only briefly but and i and i understand that he made multiple attempts to change counsel but given the the fact that he was facing such a long sentence substantially and reasonable while the sense falls within the guidelines yes the court to review the forty five year sentence is excessive especially in the context of the senses of the coconspirators in this case none of which exceeded a fifty years which was the sense that was being proposed by defense counsel the longest term in the p s r if i recall correctly or any of the other co defendants was less than five years  however in light of the fact that these assaults did not result in any permanent injury or disagreement disfigurement and that the extent of the conspiracy in part not wholly but certainly in part was driven by remarks around and actually looking at what judge forrest said with respect to arguments presented by mr kurtz and the points that she had to make independently about the terence there's no reason under explicitly stated intention to tear others sharing some national origin from violating united states law and indeed in addressing mr cripps since his arguments about his own national origins  what judge forested was in fact make the point that he should not be treated differently as the result is georgian nationality you go to the sentencing transcripts and paragraph that follows immediately on her comments about his fame generally including the fact that he was a world famous boxer it's true that his particular power and his particular role within  games power and gangs intimidation fearsome this from his particular fame within the georgian community and judge for us i think rightly was commenting about that argument in response to  any actual bias in any work and in many circumstances was probably responding to arguments made by r d but once they start talking about how messages of deterrence will be towards the notion that no one regardless of where you're from can escape the full significance of the us criminal law with our comments on individuals being the terror generally if you did african american do you think that capabilities that we there's no way we would say that wise the fact that he's george and he was difficult the governor wants to defend that's not beyond attempts to overlook much of the trial record with respect to mr cripps actions just to put this in sort of chris context because there is some lighting of what actually happens in the record a participated and in this in this scheme in multiple ways and there are multiple indications that he actually knew what was going on the defense here from from the very opening statement was not that he didn't the poker house is a poker house where you play cards it's not a poker house where there are electronic slot machines being manipulated to just see at the very outset of the scheme to  deceive casinos mr card sits up picks up an electronic slot machine on the side of the road from us confidential source who had been previously engaged with and selling stolen goods he doesn't move it to the poker house moves it to the private h is not the case as the reply brief suggests that the only the only fact that we relied on for the conscious avoidance instruction was the silent drive in fact if you turn to my statement to the district court to make the arguments and then the district court's ultimate ruling referring to both the sound dr and the other evidence that we or we were talking about not only asylum drive but the other evidence that that i'll walk through that  what i believe indicates our situation circumstances that are so overwhelmingly suspicious that the failure to question those suspicious circumstances would establish the defendant's purposeful contrivance in the words of this court to avoid confirming actual knowledge i think that the jury from all this evidence has plenty to to infer that he had actual knowledge of what was going  on but even assuming that they didn't all of this is is overwhelming evidence that he purposely contrived to avoid learning so he walks in it was mr mehlman into over house he later  drives to a new jersey bath house to redeliver the same electronic machines at the same confidential source even drives mr mehlman to do an atlantic city casino writing in silence for the purpose of in the record to indicate why they didn't talk i think it's perfectly well founded and the inference can easily be drawn that you don't talk because you don't want to say incriminating things to a guy you don't know that well but the  fact is there isn't information the record shows they both speak russian so that there's no basis at think that they can't communicate on that drive they collect the data that i just described and  to conduct the fraud and mr cripps it does not say much on the call other than to agree and a sense that he knows what mr shaw is talking about and the jury is perfectly well equipped and  titled to infer that mr kurtz of his hearing a discussion the context of which he understood from prior discussions and prior information and then finally if the content of the file and this is this is a point mirroring software what they are instead are he whines or what what mr mehlman describes as a lot those are another critical piece of information that you have to have in order to understand how to rig the slot machine or how to rig the software that that's going to be developed mr mehlman actually commented specifically on this exhibit at trial   is playing and what the results are in order basically in order to tell where within the life of the program on a given machine that machine is and that's true what he is receiving is photographs from a coconspirator of the other slot machines in a casino there's no need to be showing rotations that and there's no evidence that you like forwarded for example that the photos these wouldn't need to be forwarded they just need to be physically shown to somebody mr mehlman explains again how the he lives are used you would not need to see them move in order to benefit from them and the inference that i think is plainly to be drawn here is that in it it's one thing if he had gone into a casino and taken photographs of a slot machine not knowing why his friends mr shall i had told him to go take some pictures but to be receiving otherwise completely uninteresting photographs of essentially the instructions for how to play an electronic slot machine and has no it makes no sense other than to assume that he is collecting that data exactly in the way that he and mr mehlman drove to atlantic john was his co counsel also c j one point that i would just correct to the to the extent that there's confusion about this mr schoeman was not retained at least insofar as the record reflects there there is in the pro se reply brief new evidence that was submitted it's not part of the record i have no idea if it's authentic or not but in any event it doesn't show that he actually was retained by mr shaw life watches is that somebody named mr shawn may have received money from a woman named tachyon in montana that is the name of the person who record documents i think is lacking is also the case that mr shulman was never denied it the ability to how many before trial there's there's no indication that mr shulman exists until after the trial is over appear in this case and indeed he never did attempt to appear in the case that there's no notice of appearance for him you never comes on the record what it says as she will not let me which is almost certainly not correct in so a personal commitment before the sentencing and and he was allowed to speak he was allowed to raise points largely about the tax loss relating to the contraband cigarette case country and cigarette tax all of which was in detail set out already at trial so that the the tax loss issue really was not something that could have required a phatic organized crime group he was the four in this case that is somebody who is dedicated to essentially a life of criminal activity and he lived that life to its fullest he committed way unlike what is also stated and some of the precinct it was successful they did in fact achieve the ability to mirror these machines it was demonstrated for an undercover officer  he oversaw and in fact himself it ministered multiple violent reprisals of people that insulted him in any number of ways from from the petty to the financial as actual knowledge it was whether the evidence in the record was such that you program that such that irrational juror could reach the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that conceives i was aware of a high probability of this this computer programming fraud and the fact that he's the the pictures that he received on his phone and the were open and that there was no testimony that he showed them to anybody no matter what mr adams says about what about how they could be used there's no testimony that he used them in that way and in fact almost all of the trial testimony about the footage from these machines work was with respect to the videos and the rotations which is a huge that makes the number of partitions that were is very rare and judging by the paper and judging by the possible to open the machine so it's not clear that these types of videos were it that these photos on currency days phone were ever even used by anybody even if they were the type of photos as opposed to the video which was the why would you sum them why would you send them to they may have been sent to multiple people it may be a mistake that he got maybe that might be true but that doesn't answer my question beyond a reasonable doubt that you could infer that it was not just should have known obviously negligently not knowing even recklessly not knowing is insufficient you need to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt upon which a rational jerk lived you could base that decision that  he took affirmative steps that he punch a slate willfully blinded himself to the nature of this so even if it is a reasonable inference and friends that he having received those photos show them to somebody else the question is not whether that's a reasonable and elias argument because if we take out mr shulman from the picture as the government suggests we should then really listen in this is appearance is but certainly he had asked for something that was quite reasonable and not at all prejudicial to the government and should have been granted thank you very much thank you well argued all appreciate your