this wasn't a lightning strike that suddenly occurred after the pretrial stage of this case right judge the decision permitted discovery the filing of the motion and the would or the first of its kind permitting discovery was was within days of al read my raising the yes that was a district court's decision which obviously resulted from somebody thinking to ask or i predict is contrary to the plain text well completely intertwined the outrageousness of the government's conduct in this capably involves not only the creation of the crime the inducement and those six factors which is now two tally of circumstances test which was outlined were even targeting your client thereafter kweisi and your client the interior so doesn't that put him in a in a tough spot trying to argue that they were out to get and try to you know you've got sense  wanted he paid for college for his employees twenty five thousand dollars apiece simple simple investigation would have divided the government to realize that that wasn't true in the in the investigation itself  a rule if there to prevail here but says he fake stash house robbery stealing isn't valid as a category because if we allow the category to be valid in some way shape or form you could provoke the racial case but you've got to do that by bringing forward some evidence of broader african americans who are engaged in right behavior who are getting a pass through this i mean do you think you could prove i'm not saying you fail here but attorney to question the underlying national policy determinations recording any law enforcement practice well it's all been go that far and it sets out a burden that one of us through the past which i do think is totally issue and deny the motion following the language in or struck i understand his his reasoning his rationale that there's a working but that that's part of the problem when you go through the mechanism that has been established by you folks portion of the community when you're praying and citizens who are in a very dire situation otherwise young guys look with kids we're trying to do the right thing otherwise how much she's you have to put into the trap to get the message that you're looking for  were saying you're sympathetic but there's not much you can do i first like to say janabi does not control here on the subject is it does not control because that was under color of law that this this fabrication goes not become you know who would take me to riyadh who would take me now that i'm this or that helps you i believe that it does your honor in terms of demonstrating the outrageousness of what was done here you hit the nail on the end by beginning that he's the person that they were going to have what was not even at the door then whitfield then but fruits other people and the situation just goes downhill just the other thing i want to suggest is that there is a joystick tional issue that that that b can be granted here because of the or broken of the commerce clause and if you look at this record judge this is not a drug trafficking case it is not in terms of sentencing there is a whole lot you can do you can suggest a new sentencing under the different power of powers that i addressed in my brief but more importantly a departure oh we've got well i'm just that these young men but see again if you put the whole process together from start to finish this was not a drug transaction case although the government makes that argument at different times it's inconsistent because the overwhelming testimony from the government witnesses was that the pay for the stash else were robbing the stash house was that somebody or individuals were going to get a brick or a kilo of cocaine they government argues at one point that there was going to be a cooperate of distribution or selling of the cocaine they cannot have a both ways so that sentencing could have been under what was the a wedge violent action concerning the stash house robbery the drug distribution was something i suggest totally collateral and and again not their theory of their case although they speak out of both sides of their mouth when that doesn't back appen so so judge i suggest that if you want to begin to  determination that the judge misunderstood sanchez to have been waived given the standard the outrageous cover conduct which is conduct that is so outrageous that it shocks the universal conscience and is clearly intolerable the idea that they had to wait until not the they confuse the discovery issue on racial profiling with outrageous conduct they waited until they had this decision from california which was later reversed the reason they didn't think of this is there was nothing out wages here they conduct here was a standard  instead the defense scholar on a bandwagon later claiming that there was something outrageous that they couldn't just what happened in chicago because of the publisher the that occurred exactly  for two purposes tant which it anticipated would be disputed and the association of the parties that is where all who recruited long the explanation for that recruitment trial so that i think it is clear that he is rule you with respect to this evidence was one announced beforehand i will reconsider this if you make it relevant which where we're talking right now about a lack of clarity in the wayne process by this district judge me just suggest that somehow this isn't getting through gets there do you on the part of a prosecutor where the record hasn't been made government's support for ruling by the trial judge we did not perceive that this was a close question therefore we didn't argue harmless error the having previously be clay or his understanding what a week was and his willingness to participate had it been invited by rawls  then unequivocally and repeatedly stated his understanding of what was proposed refused an offer to withdraw from it and  therefore with the court's permission i will submit briefly the argument i'm making now that we're there error which we don't believe there was even taking into account which we try faithfully to do this court's admonitions that we do not make adequate records and understanding that is an obligation of the parties to set the issues before the court i don't fall just sanchez but i think it was clear what he would rule world to make that conversation those previous conversations all the more relevant and the bat affected not his view on whether it was a because the evidence was not at all necessary to prove intent which was established unequivocally if he had no intent the night before and he had no intent would he reach the meeting he declared his intent during that meeting and was given an opportunity to say well if this isn't what you want to get involved in your out of it and continued on carries a certain measure of proof that will be taken by a jury that will cause them to look at this defendant and a completely different light in respect of the certain other evidence that the that is a possibility and that's why this court the courts community with this court's approval have created instructions on how the jury should use the evidence that this evidence is offered for a limited purpose bat is where the danger which is the reason why this is to be litigated if possible before trial by the instruction which is required to be given when the evidence comes in for a non specific purpose which it did hear two ways for intent and f association to explore lead roles relationship with lawn and there's nothing about caldwell or brown or any of the other opinions or discord with respect to this type it's hard to see that a mystery on that point would have been more prejudicial than the appropriately properly admitted evidence which was explained to the jury was offered for a  nature of the proposed crime on that is one way that it's a draft and we agree that court should must when they reach the thirty five fifty three  variance where we have no reason to date he is if the defense seeks to modify a mandatory minimum sentence under a law the mandatory minimum trigger has to be submitted to the jury which it was here and the jury found the quantity of five or more kilograms it was offered with respect to each defendant the alternative of five hundred or more which was greater than the mandatory minimum balance to five rather than ten should the court find contrary to the findings of a judge sanchez that there was a manipulation there was some time in process violation here what remedies are raise the issue they should do so to the jury and has proposed mom instructions which i submit to the court would have been better done by judge jones committee on the question so although that my circuit has said you may set it aside they recognized in the context that we have here that's a jury question and here where the jury verdict stands there is no re  there is no remedy we did have a remedy with respect to the defendant thompson who qualified for war and hanssen it because of his prior criminal history which was an issue for the respect to the quantity of terminations not the file which brought his mandatory minimum down to the same as the other thread but you swindler there is absolutely no predisposition in this record for my client to committing or robbery of a stash house for ten keys the only discussion of keys is below five two and three so frankly to which i believe the trapping of my client for a crime more serious than he was predisposed the racial targeting issue is very very simple and yet outrageous conduct the argument is i think we are tak be attained here that in conjunction with the things that i said earlier you have the power under your due process under a defendant's to process to do two things to the sentencing you can be mad under due process both under the guidelines and also with respect to manipulation i suggest that you have that power when i said earlier that there was this was not a drug transaction case if you agree with that finding then you can remain at it and that would lower the sentencing levels i think down to what