but in addition after reading through the briefs and through the motions there was also a soldier to indicate it would be prepared to testify that she did not involvement or ended in los angeles fire and change that night so there's actually three witnesses that the fences tonight an opportunity doesn't cry out to me why they're relevant on their distribution i think one of the burdens or one of them the reason why the defense is disadvantaged is because the defense that it did have an opportunity to interview these statements by these witnesses excuse me in a chain of statements  but my point still remains why is it wrong why is it wrong i don't believe it was an adequate remedy i believe the initial remedy post by the judge of dismissing the indictment was proper for the subsequent remedy of simply excluding the this eldritch from the disadvantage that she was placed at based upon the end of the way and prosecuting the case in place are you making some argument other was not a central figure in the conspiracy her role and her involvement in the conspiracy was her relatively short period of time and based upon that i've seen a thumb's insufficient evidence ok and if the court of the new questions on anything because the court michael over the united states this record here correctly reinstated the charges against the defendant it did not have used for reconsideration as an initial matter the defend its first argument related to that issue is that the effect that a reconsideration motion can be granted if necessary to correct a clear hour or to correct manifest injustice there's also a local rule local rule seven get a team which permits motions for reconsideration reconsideration that he said we forgot that this defendant had been charged into conspiracy counts on that she had been charged with aiding and abetting the importation of m d m a he was operating under his own mistaken impression that all she was charged with was  of the pound of importing in the a m a and that therefore if she was prejudiced by the customs inspectors last testimony relating to her own importation that charge you have to be dismissed he just forgot and so under this court inspectors had been produced to the defendant prior to her the hearing on her motion to dismiss the second time there after at that hearing where judge talk to stupid to grant the motion the defendant for the first time advised us of a could have been the person at the end it claimed searched her suitcase and so when you look at those factors just talking subi clearly did not of use his discretion when he found that he had made a mistake and even though he didn't grant the motion on all of the grounds that we had urged he did grant the motion to reconsider we feel he should have also granted on the grounds that he clearly erred because the a law on the circuit is quite clear that the defendants claim of prejudice was noted for the record that miss eunice statement was inadvertent and then he offered to cure it he said i can cure this if i can be permitted to ask ms buno if she really meant to say my suitcase without being deemed to have opened the door to being deemed open the door i agree to that he asked that question you know retracted her testimony and said yes i'm going to say my suitcase in closing argument defense counsel argued there's not a shred of evidence that my client had m d m a and or suitcase and he even i'm not going to ask any more questions like that you know like that and i'm going to not make that argument in closing so we're left with a situation where government counsel asked a question that he shouldn't have and the question then becomes was that misconduct and if so did is it more probable than not that the misconduct materially affected jury's verdict and now lies in the first question is in this conduct this court case law is that you need to examine the conduct of the government in the context of the interim entire trial what we have here is one question in the context of a long complicated case which was objected to by defense counsel where the winds as you know where the government i so if you look at the cases we've cited in our brief it's clear that in this type of situation the one question which was asked was not misconduct when viewed in the context of the entire trial and i mean if the court wants to find that this was she also challenges the admission of wayne sanders testimony regarding her drug usage and for the record that was never objected to us trials of the plane our standard of lies to that claim two other women sanders testimony regarding the analogies drug use the fact remains that two other witnesses already testified to that and their testimony is not being challenged so certainly substantial rights were not affected here because the tests in one had come in in any event and we certainly do not agree with her claim that this was error or that it was plain because in the context of this trial her drug use was inexplicably image wind with the evidence in the case and that's because  smuggle drugs because he's doing drugs and so are it explains the fact wife you know would be approached by stacy eldridge and asked to go on a trip to smuggle drugs because they do drugs together all the time and eldridge knew she can ask you know this without you know being shocked and explained why eldridge would go and confide in one cinders you could see was a drug dealer he was once acquire with the drugs and so it wasn't something that would be unusual she wouldn't think that this is a danger for me to the sufficiency of the evidence we still strongly believe that there was to isolate the traps involving mr walters there was the trip from las vegas for l a to paris and then there was the other trip to new york but other than that there was no other evidence connecting her  conspiracy she was not profiting from her actions she was not intimately involved with the conspiracy she was not intimately involved with the coconspirators there was no longer a ration of period from which that she could be connected and mentally with the coconspirators but rather she had these