they please the court counsel in order to prove that mcmahon as knowingly and intentionally joined the conspiracy the government is required to prove that he knew of the essential nature and of the scope of the charge conspiracy and that he intended to join it although it is true that a conspirator can join a conspiracy at the end and it's also true that conspirator need not know the identity of all of his it must be proven that he knew of the conspiracy scope here the scope of the conspiracy charge well what difference would it make if he he was just the party to the well this is the new jersey honor knows the evidence related to the new jersey conspiracy involved a five minute conversation that ended in the handshake but the jury also heard evidence of the wisconsin collection attempt that involved testimony relating to putting the victim six feet under to breaking his legs that resulted in the victim handing over his driver's license and turning over his his be a call so there's a very different set of facts in those facts teated the jury's decision with respect to mr mcmanus is one visit to new jersey there was a very different set of circumstances so if mr mcmanus did not knowingly join the larger conspiracy to commit all three hobs act violations in nevada wisconsin and new jersey but was only being tried for the conspiracy to commit the attempt in new jersey when the jury would not have her the more egregious evidence relating to senator and sort of like  because in the new jersey visit there is no threat of the use of violence unlike the unlike the testimony that's related to the wisconsin visit so because of the jury hears the testimony related to the wisconsin visit and said they were coming back they did your honor yes well they did number one they didn't return but the fact that they said they were coming back even again even if that one statement were to rise to the level of extortion again we don't know if the jury would have convicted on that because it the jury was tainted by hearing the wisconsin evidence and the jury although it was instructed that they were  now totally lost your client was actually convicted of extortion that is the substantive offense well that's right it was extraordinary but we know your client was convicted of attempted extortion so i don't see how there could be any doubt about what the jury would do the jury did the jury did but the jury also heard evidence that related to the wisconsin collection attempt and there was confusion as to which attempt was being discussed when mr brown is talking about the use of fear this is the at nine seventy six that the government repeatedly cites and it's brief where mr brown talks about the use of fear and it appears he's talking about wisconsin but in any event actually the district court judge i directed the jury not to consider that evidence with respect to mr mcmanus so the the danger of confusion to the jury here was clear and it was evidenced by the government's response brief where they did not even themselves follow the instruction that the district court is a reversal of one count where there are multiple concurrent counts being served simultaneously prudence and fairness dictates vacating all sentences and remanding for reasons on the count that survives to why that would be see anything it into your other than that by the way that your client paid the hundred dollars does he want it as he didn't want it back your honor i don't i don't know the answer to that question but i would i see my time is up but i would conclude just by saying that i did it that it wasn't the fact that that the jury did not just consider the new jersey collection attempt which is what should have properly been considered if mr mcmanus was only being tried on that count and because he had no knowledge of the larger conspiracy he good morning to the honorable body mr orlando posits to arguments and all kind of argue them together one is that he should have been assessed a minor role in the offense under three v one point two and one is that there is disparate sentencing among his co defendants and related cases the court in this case ruled that although it was a quote close call as to whether or not he was a minor participant and although  mr orlando didn't really have a precise idea of what was going on during many of the extortions and although he didn't know that one of the extortions was actually committed in new jersey and he didn't  anyone was beaten were touched or what the language of the but he did the recruiting and then the court said he didn't wash his hands but what the court said was you continued to participate and then he said the court said maybe participate is too strong a word you  extortionate scheme and you have some tough guys huge guys big guys right not that they go out and they go and do it but he didn't organize anything or he didn't plan anything he didn't participate in the  is vital even if you're the recruit even if your role is completed over a number of times the question to determine whether minor participant is whether you're less culpable than the co defendants and he's obviously less culpable th is one of the fact yes but it's not the telling factor there are seven other factors was going to get money from the crime which he wasn't was he participated the government's and that's fourteen pages of facts doesn't say anything that orlando that he doesn't know what's going on during the commission of the offense he doesn't know if they're using violence or not what he did was make an introduction of an individual to an individual who who was going to make a collection but what the point of that is is even less  said during the sentencing of orlando that brown and i also were far more culpable then then orlando and that just leaves well what about mcmanus since we just heard from small well i don't want to i don't wan rain on his grave judgment mannish committed an extraordinary went out there and committed an explosion he went out there and planned it he found the person he did all of these things that are leno has no idea of what's going on why he didn't do orlando doesn't even know mcmanus he didn't make the introduction of this didn't actually do threatening stuff he was just present he was present for the story he did say things or no this far as i know lastly i'd like to very quickly point out the fact that there's a despairing sentencing i don't know how the government could get up before the court and indicate that co defendants should receive the sentences they have currently received forty two months when he committed obstruction of justice and threatened what are you to say about our holding in possible reno that anybody who is sentence within or below the guideline range cannot make a complaint under thirty five fifty three eighty six the government provide on bias for reno and i notice that your reply brief didn't mention that well i was i was lying out of the facts of each  was defined by core common participants the same means across from each of the attempted extortion and over a short period of time the defense seems to acknowledge that this was a single conspiracy he argues that mcmanus was not a knowing member of that conspiracy because he was not aware of the events outside of the new jersey trip he was recruited by kirk around to go to new york in new jersey to talk not just to one debtor but to two so that trip involved not only visiting new jersey which was the concrete media extortion that your honour's were referring to but also to find ya know who was the owner of union transport whom these individuals had previously attempted to visit in las vegas that alone defeats the defendant's argument that he thought that this conspiracy was limited to only one debtor ultimately this is a this was a jury question the same argument was made to the jury the jury was instructed that they needed to find that the defendant had knowledge of the overall conspiracy and the jury made that finding your honor's questions about whether it would affect the ultimate result in this case if he had been a part of a more limited conspiracy the answer is no his guidelines range would remain exactly the same orlando also was a coconspirator in that new jersey new york tricky help plan that and so it would have been appropriate to have a joint trial involvement did not end with that introduction he continued his involvement he organized the planning meetings he provided money for the trips he was a conduit of information during those trips so he received phone calls from the individuals who  traveling he provided information from did you then he relayed information from his you've been to these individuals his involvement what sustained and it was involved and he was not a minor role in this conspiracy his sentence that he received was that was forty six months it was below the applicable guidelines range and it was reasonable even in comparison to other defendants the only two defendants that are even tangentially related to the investigation that were sentenced at the time of th analogous defendant he was charged in a completely separate extortion conspiracy the only link to this case being that brown was involved in both cases all of the other defendants that that orlando cites in his reply brief were not something that was  discount that dropped him down below the guidelines range of the remaining defendants that were sentenced by this particular district court the only one who actually travel and were involved in the actual extortions were mcmahon was mcmanus which contributed to his sixty month sentence mcmanus also has an atrocious criminal history he has thirteen criminal history points put him in criminal history category six so his guidelines range at the low end was eighty seven months so his sixteen months was well below the bottom line bottom of that guidelines range did orlando have the problems he was in criminal history category one he had one criminal history point if there are no further questions from the court the government in response to the government's position that mr mcmanus knew that there were multiple collection attempts in new jersey there is simply no evidence of that and that the government has info and ply that the jury properly  that the computer research that he did involved something that would have indicated his larger knowledge but the government has not contended in fact took the position of the district court that the computer research did not involve m target and there's simply no evidence that mr mcmanus knew anything about a collection from mr biscoe you know in new jersey and following up earlier on the conversation i had with you you judge brooke i don't believe this is about sentencing this is really about whether or not mcmanus received a fair trial when the activities in wisconsin of which he was not involved in the planning execution he had no knowledge of at the time he went to new jersey whether that evidence should have been considered by the jury and whether that  went out to an extortion that the individual extorted passed out and then when he woke up they beat him up to collect the money received probation regardless of how we categorize his introduction of these individuals you have orlando who's serving a forty six month sentence the leader organizer of the same spirit in the mobster who coordinated all of the and received fruits of the crimes and coordinated the crimes receive a forty two month sentence other individuals receiving probation a year and a day sentence the santas was sentenced at the time recruited some mobsters to do a collection when they couldn't do it he recruited other mobsters to collect and i apologize for not  addressing by screen in my response but the government didn't cite by screening for the guidelines sentence on page fifty four they said that the court has said that the thirty five fifty three a six applies not the sentencing differences but the unwarranted disparities and that a reward for cop cooperation is a legitimate reason for difference and they cited four separate cases never talked with up onscreen ovett that's why i didn't respond to busk reno but i believe it's a coup of equity the sentence in this case is it's outrageous as applied to orlando for his commission of of having lunches and making an introduction and not knowing what's going on with the computer conspiracy and asked you to consider