basically drug smuggling the board of us our issues obviously the four a four b evidence the district court allowed to be brought and presented to the jury moreover our position is that the evidence that was propped brought in did not go through the proper for all three analysis which is basically that it would be prejudicial quite frankly the concern that we have is that the four hundred four b evidence itself was not used to prove knowledge intent and so on it was used specifically to indicate that this man had a pattern of alien smuggling in fact the prosecutor in a closing argument basically said lightning does not strike twice that is in no way no the way to interpret it is character evidence he's a smuggler once he's back and he did it again now the charges we're talking about of the two thousand and three stop and arkansas where approximately three hundred thousand dollars in cash or currency was taken off  neither one of them were charged prosecuted convicted nothing essentially they said they had no knowledge of the money the money was taken off of them and that was it some ten years later apparently now that is relevant in order for them to present it to this jury in this particular case so it seems to me that what wasn't relevant once before or was week once before now is relevant in this particular case where that's from natur human experience to two things that seem weak in and of themselves tend to reinforce each other that maybe so you're on about if you if you if you have sort of a bizarre kind of if you do this twice and you say oh it was a mistake i have no idea what was going on maybe you are lying both times but your honor did he do it twice the first time essentially he was stopped and money was relieved there was no admission of wrongdoing in case wrongdoing there was no admission of wrongdoing that might by mr martin as others are in two thousand and three in fact he happily gave up the money notwithstanding ten years later now it's been used to as i said in this case was basically the dirty him up in order for us not to have a fair shake at a trial ultimately what it came down to is we went through the mechanics of a trial but in the end i guess i'm just not understanding your argument this  years earlier yes and he gives up us a significant amount of money that is correct taken from him so this is not one of those things where it's sort of trivial he says you know he gives it up found with this money he gives it up and he doesn't use any criminal punishment for it maybe for whatever reason and the claim is well i didn't know i was and then he does again or something similar again later though you say well maybe you really was not an accident maybe he really didn't know because you know most people don't even happen to get stopped once in  three hundred thousand dollars in cash i'd be willing to bet that there isn't a single person in this courtroom who has been stopped with three hundred thousand dollars in cash and don't answer the question and i'm just i'm just i'm just thinking get away with it they took the money and they decided not to pursue criminal charges for whatever reason maybe they didn't think they could prove it or whatever but when it happens again that point you say well maybe  jury is going to ignore that evidence of two thousand and thirteen and think hey wait a minute he got away with it once we can't let him get away with him with it again and alternately going to hold his feet to the fire no matter how weak the evidence in the two thousand and thirteen cases they brought in for one sole purpose by jury box happened to him but but the argument should be contained to plan and plan intent competent knowledge absence of mistake correct all the things that this court has as content consistently emphasize the why wasn't it relevant if it went to knowledge didn't i mean they argued it as the knowledge of the secret compartment in the car they did it in the first portion of the closing argument in rebuttal when they go when they in my humble opinion they stop on the i think at that point that's when they're using that evidence for what this war has consistently said they should be using it for and your own i believe out of time benjamin holly for the united states the evidence was properly admitted here because it did not go to character it instead it was introduced to prove knowledge and absence of mistake the reason the way it proves that the logical link between those is that having a sophisticated compartment in a recently purchased vehicle particularly one that's filled with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of items is sufficiently unusual that the jury could reason that even if it was a mistake the first time it probably wasn't the second time now that doesn't go to character and importantly that evidence is not enough we never argued before that it was enough in another self to show that the defendant knew of the compartment but it was some evidence it was relevant to it it made it more likely that he knew of the compartment get back the argument that it was too remote in time was over a decade before that since the second incident was and it was it was ten years and one month exactly it doesn't seem quite remote in time no your honor at least not sufficiently to exclude the evidence for two reasons one is that this court is held the more similar the acts are the less the time matters here that when did the arkansas act was about ninety rights is about drugs one the important link the part that made it relevant was that it was the compartments which was yet to remove the seat rip up the flooring and then you could find the compartment and then to take it to a mechanic to actually find where the money was hidden so it was it's not just at the money is back in the car behind  in both scenarios and also on the timing point this court has previously upheld longer gaps of time about thirteen years in cases that have about the same level of similarity or possibly even less johnson is the primary case in that regard where the prior held that it was that the prior records prejudicial and that it showed that he was guilty but was not unfairly prejudicial wasn't particularly if arius another probative value was present and therefore not to substantially outweighed and if i remember correctly there was security  apart so they could find the seven and a half kilos of heroin in two thousand and three the trooper basically pulled back the carpet on the floorboard and was able to examine it right there eaves able to see it the reason that the vehicle itself was later dismantled the nother guard is obviously he was not going to engage in a full blown search on the side of the road in two thousand and three it was a interstate on the side of the road and these people were stopped for speeding so you're arguing that it wasn't all that similar  a securities fraud said hey you know they used his wife's prior signature so it was exact same type of conduct yes it was more than ten years apart it was the exacting conduct here we have two completely different set of facts that's