received a one hundred and eighty month of within the guidelines and in mr merit has raised and asked me to raise various issues on appeal  requested from the th circuit as it were applied to the conspiracy charge in the case mr parrish advocates that in some circumstances the th circuit approach may be more appropriate than underline circuit precedent i don't interpret if circuit precedent as saying a buyer so or an instruction would never apply except in circumstances where there's a single a single or a disparate distribution rather i interpret they've circulars and well it's it's likely never an abuse of discretion united or stand that if the former applies then i i have to seek and bank argument as opposed to request b one panel to overturn prior precedent so  quantity involved in the multiplicity of of transactions in here there is a very substantial quantity involved what's the what's the response to our applying our corrupt circuit precedent to sales involving the very substantial conspiracy quantities involved here my answer is simple and that is there were a lot of people involved and the jury found mr america what was involved yes and made a number of specific distributions but some of those specific just abuse sions in fact most of them were relatively small quantities to end users the confidential informant if i had may have this in correct made at least three buys from his residence and there they were relatively small amounts or at least he met her at a bar on one of the cajuns one of the cajuns a better residence so the point is that it's not entirely accurate to say that mr burr was shoveling large quantities out at any particular given of time although the government presented evidence that he attempted to acquire some and proceeded to chicago out of least three or four occasions to acquire larger amounts there's a whole bunch of people involved and my argument is that this is a loose association of i call them and i probably shouldn't call them that selling grams here are four grams there so the larger quantities is not always a conspiracy may and because there's always a source of supply there's always a middle man there's always substance distributors and users that's the nature of the beast and whether there's consignment or some credit arrangements or fronting up that does not necessarily mean that there is some larger agreement to distribute as an entity in that it conspiratorial basis and mr maritz position is that more leniency with respect to the buyer seller instruction from the th circuit makes it clearer to the jury as judge bright said in his dissent in a case that i cited in a circuit that  conway that it makes it easier for the jury to discern whether or not there's a differential between the large conspiracy or  a circuit precedent establishes that the propositions such as boy a buyer seller and structure is is never proper when there are multiple sales or  multiple association associates associates up or asking this panel to least in this particular case revisit that analysis for the reasons the facts and the evidence present any change to the longstanding position of this circuit with respect to when a buyer or seller instruction is appropriate simply put as judge abinger specifically set forth in her record here in that's in the trial transcript volume four at page six hundred and ninety five she set forth what the evidence she had heard at trial was and how that evidence specifically and in her view which i believe to be correct unequivocally cuts against a buyer seller instruction the evidence here for your hono is that mr merritt participated extensively in this cocaine trafficking conspiracy the evidence here is that mr merrett was the head of that conspiracy in the des moines area the evidence here is that mr merrett traveled to chicago on four occasions to purchase not small quantities of cocaine but significant quantities of cocaine two ounces seven ounces nine ounces eleven ounces during those trips the evidence at trial with respect to those quantities was supported both by interceptions as well as  coconspirator information in addition to those four trips to chicago that was not the only manner in which mr mair received substantial quantities of cocaine for his redistribution  chicago's sources delivered to him in dumb wine they traveled to des moines to his location his residence and delivered approximately one half kilogram of cocaine on approximately march seven of two thousand and nineteen they traveled again about a week later to the morning and distributed two hundred grams of cocaine to mr merrett in addition to that merrett had a completely separate source of cocaine separate from chicago and that is the sources referred to in the trial transcript and information as a texas source they're referred to as a texas source because they had a texas area code and the interceptions indicated that that source was bringing the cocaine directly across the southern border the evidence customers he made more to pull sales to a confidential source in mr maritz alleyway behind his residence and those were relatively small amounts eight balls three grams approximately two to three grams however it's true there had multiple customers it multiple customers some of which were receiving relatively small amounts but some of which were receiving larger amounts one does not receive over two kilograms of cocaine in a relatively short period in make money and further and move the product by selling eight balls only mr merrett had others who we're just receiving more substantial amounts and they were redistributing them i would note there was trial testimony with respect to a coconspirator named jose sanchez  he was receiving cocaine through mr barrett along with mr marriott from sources and police found just shy of a half kilogram of cocaine in mr sanchez home and he had a digital scales in the home digital scales and his s u v he had a in everything that one would need to distribute cocaine simply put your honour's this is not the case where the buyer seller instruction would be appropriate in any regard with respect to the other issues your honor i believe that the additional instruction that he is asking for now in the district court squawked accurate on the issue poster i hafe there was nowhere in the instruction given  whatsoever let alone plain error with respect to the other issues are on or i think this time i will rely upon my brief but i'm happy to answer any questions that for me when the search warrant was executed or during the course of this extremely elaborate investigation they found no money to associate any profit making activity by mr barrow whatsoever he had baby one hundred and seventy dollars in his pocket and nothing to show for what the government claimed was a massive conspiracy of what she was the head of  v that harley ram and that's it and we think that would have been important for the jury to contrast with a hard sell or instruction  s supreme court case to require that the jury had to know that he knew that it was specifically a prohibited person as a result of that qualified conviction so that that that's why i've raised that issue d your honor it was not preserved at the district court level what acknowledge that and but we in the event that there's some further interpretation or