ahead your honour's and the government has a big problem in this case it has a suitcase of heroin but no evidence connecting that case to anyone other than it's cooperating with witness mr walden who the government surgery and kids playground cler right and cool notes with these words mean they could have related to that one conclusion i mentioned right a car enterprise but they could've related to any number of enterprises you know i under claire cash diamonds and certainly drugs right but you know there's really not there's not that that evidence of the what that me well you know i am a i want to hear someone buys it someone books a ticket for someone someone gives them a one thousand dollars for a trip and they return with her with a suitcase full of drugs yes it is it in a rational conclusion that there was a connection between the trip and the money and the drugs you know i do think so because i do think so ok i  because there's nothing here that shows that my client knew or should have know i mean i let you know if it was drugs what kind of drugs what i want to be a drug you know if you know there's just no there's no evidence here to establ testified about transactions my client was involved in right we know he was involved in car transactions right we know that he had and i withdrew all his name but you're saying that reminded me they might have been talking  trial you know my client's lawyer argued that they may very well of been our have been talking about money that the secret did in luggage related to car transactions right and but it really is not my job here and  they were you know having a conversation in the context of a trick that was happening right and that they were speaking code but they're just going to make the prison separately yeah and there's also other evidence that was introduced messages that w well you know there were a lot you know that that kind of segues neatly into the next argument in my brief which is that the court district court improperly excluded other text messages in and oral statements messages were not admissible well the judge the district court denied goodness that hit them on the right that there was a motion and there were several motions that were made and after trial my client complained and ultimately got any lawyer because he was upset that the messages were let in and the government said i don't you know i don't understand what you're upset about this issue is preserved right but that point i know the government has made a different argument and free to fear but at that point the government argued that the issue was preserved right and these messages you know when you're looking in your looking at the weight of the evidence and you're saying look there's all these messages between him and walden you know which the government is arguing about drugs and then there's on the other side there's you through these two messages right and it wasn't the context was weighted unfairly right because it made it look like walton had all had tons of messages between or walden state of mind at the time he was trafficking the narcotics and the effect of you know so if anything even the audio files and what that method is that works with what allows the jury to understand what wall them thought as well was at conversations he planned all aspects of this drug smuggling operation from the number of hands that they would be doing he said in his own words he was the one talking at his quote four days for the code doctors in togo to make sure everything ran fluid so one council argues there is no evidence connecting the drugs to anyone other than logged in that's incorrect because in this case unlike many cases we have  required to prove to sustain a conviction that he knew exactly which type and me exactly want to be a narcotic and there's also as this determine that the person to book a flight paid one thousand dollars in advance of the trip then sent hundreds of messages saying i'm talking to my boys i'm talking to doctors are we going to do two hands one hand we hand the messages so that he wrote is in control of the situation and he is really planning all aspect that he is not a subordinate role and i submit your honor it would have been irrational for geo or the person organizing the trip to do all that to plan to meet walden and then to be shocked when instead of the diamonds that he was expecting supposedly ringback all that actually shows up with heroin were hundreds to thousands of dollars alternately that it has expressed some skepticism but it also said i'm going to quote now this is four hundred and fifty nine in line twelve i'll get more thoroughly into it at the trial the court then held that the comments were that his comments this is judge jury quote were not a ruling but an observation that's of the same kind now as i understand it then alternately to the two statements in question that were admitted were offered  reduce any other of those statements today after that initial inclination and the offering of of two was there any other application to admit additional statements and there are the that appears in the record that offered then there's no there's no determination to determine for us to then look at to see if that was there and if i could but a little bit more color on that as well in fact what judge when there was a discussion before opening arguments i think it was d the day before after jury selection what judge perry and back with your clear them for your opening because i had doubt and and then we'll get more into it because what judge jury did not want according to the said i won't entertain any of this he says he limited it was regarded the opening but said that if there were others that they wish to offer he'd be considerate he didn't he didn't you know sometimes if a judge says look don't do this anymore th then understood you don't have to continue to beat your head against the wall they have to judge tell you no in front of the jury but i don't i don't see that here at least i don't from what i've been able to find i'm anxious to see if there's a if there's language that effect the offer and the statement you just referenced which was actually a month and a half after the trial in a completely different context that method you just were talking about was a statement where that the senate was speaking directly to judge jury in court because he was upset that he didn't see certain messages and i was simply seeking to clarify whether the defendant was talking about the three hundred and seventy five messages offered and limon a which we were for a different set of messages that were in the record at all and the statement i made a month and a half after the child do not invent some understanding of judge series ruling beyond t so your position is that your court never rules one way or the other on any of the messages it's up to the two that were admitted that actually it was three messages that he ruled on and only t denied the message and in fact i think when reading all of the transcripts it's clear that judge perry bent over backwards again and again and again even after being presented with the  were ultimately admitted and the other messages just were never actually offered and there was no actual ruling by judge perry and in fact i think there's a point where he almost withdraws the motion rebuttal thank you your honor and i agree with your i think the answer is yes your question i think there is a line when it comes that we're moving i think judge perry did make it clear that the me ask you then just before opening statements this is what he said he said that's not a final ruling because you've given me so many statements although address and a direct counsel stay clear of it in your opening statements how role you know given the evidence presented at trial is a far cry and they are organizing a shipment of drugs right you know as you both sentencing th you know that this was a rare opportunity to sentence someone who wasn't a courier and i understand that impulse to want to do that you know but there's the evidence the trial didn't show that he had a controlling role in fact the government stressed  discuss that where one is instructing the others on how on how many hands or surgeries and to write there's very there's a lot that's left up to to walden and his discretion right they decide gather how many hands there will be right and you know and it's clear also that walton was free to choose in the date for travel he was free to choose who he wanted to meet up with on the trip he was making his own independent travel arrangements in togo walden you know there wasn't even evidence that you know the government arguing that jingle would be picking him up at the airport but all that rabble to point to was what that message in which they made plans to meet as usual right so being there was no witness to testify about this relationship right we were left just their minds the relationship based on these text messages and these text messages alone do not show my client controlling o