but everyone agrees all the parties agreed that they did not have a search warrant in fact a record in this case unlike most of the other independent source cases shows that the police had specifically not decided to get a search warrant when they went to serve us for now so here's the problem i have with your argument on this point i'm just speaking only for myself and maybe you can help me with this it seems to me that even if the evidence regarding the sighting of envelopes on the kitchen table were excised from the affidavit in support of a search warrant it's seems to me that was plenty else going on here for example she gave them a brand  whether there was an exploitation of the l illegality whether there was a taint and that that like we said is a factual question in this case i think the warrant one affidavit shows that there was enough to make it enough of the paschal question for he government admits they had not made that decision before the illegal conduct and then second the second fact we have in this case that distinguishes it from just any sort of used any sort of reference whatsoever is that it did play an important part asserted there but i also think that because of that whole discussion in that part of the warrant affidavit it showed why this was a factual question the government was allowed to make its decisions regarding the facts but the defense never had the opportunity to cross it is so prejudicial to or overpowers any other outside of this and it will always be treated and no matter how you find out her residency the that the mail on the table some of the case as the independent source cases are also revealing and shell why that is distinguishable in that in those cases they didn't even mention in the search warrant affidavit the illegal entry that occurred in those cases it was easy for the courts to her numerous other reasons she got four points for being a leader organizer two points for more than minimal planning there were significant enhancements for the amount of loss and possession of over five means of identification  earlier obviously the arrest takes place before the protective sweep but a few minutes before it's out so those facts had to have been knowing before any other facts there's no one there's a practical matter have been time to develop them it's not in the record but i would represent to the services i think that's a fair inference and that's the court is also pointed out the surveillance has been conducted over the course of the previous week or two and the arrested taken place prior to the sweep so there is plenty of evidence there the other important the only the only value that it has at all is evident not is an indication of progress anything but is an indication that she lives here which is already clearly established by the fact that she's arrested there are surveillance showing her there and the postal service has said she receives mail there once they say that finding a letter is that is what you would expect it has nothing to what on the search i'd add one other point which is under mary which we've cited i and therefore to support the magistrate's issuance so that wouldn't require a hearing the only way you would have a factual question of hearing would be if the court found that this was the critical evidence and then you would presumably have a factual hearing on whether what actually happened was a legitimate protective sweep or not that would be a factual question that might justify a hearing but in this case and the government would contend that it was a legitimate protective suite and that the affidavit supports that but i would understand that that would be an appropriate situation for a hearing here mail and the fact that he saw the mail is what leads him to the art and i have not taken the defendant's argument that that's what i can say your honor it's demand i am not understood her to be making that argument is never made until the reply brief and i was go search warrant affidavit to the complaint you'll see that most of it is really the complaints there are i think for applying a paragraph at the end so there was rather any case that had to be prepared or was prepared in advance and that information somewhere in  because in the the reply brief i think makes a slightly different argument than the government understood defendant to have been making in the trial court and in the opening brief defendant sought a trial instruction on multiple conspiracy the government has always was no and in our brief we laid out it basically detailed refutation of that there was no evidence to support that and so the district court did not abuse of discretion in denying that instruction the reply brief says the government is misconstrued the defendant's argument and that the argument was that some of the coconspirators conspired with other people to do other things and those are the multiple conspiracies and again the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the struction if that was the theory i think that's i have not understood that to be the fairest i'd argue it's way but if it was it would not support the instruction because whatever this conduct was was entirely unrelated to the conduct at trial there's really two example sites one is an episode in which the nation would be a coconspirator stole someone's purse at an airport a number of years ago she did that with her sister she admitted that on the stand it has nothing to do with the conduct at issue in this trial it has nothing to do with the crimes with which coleman was charged the other incentives similarly removed from the conduct here so the kind of here with the court was with the jury was being asked to look at and decide whether coleman had conspired to do was entirely unrelated to this other conduct there's no a record on the record in this case it's clear that that finding was appropriate the district court did not commit clear or the best evidence of that is really what was found in the search of coleman's house when the officers searched the house they found basically everything you need it's a sophisticated identity theft factory she had all of the documents you need all the things you need to conduct identity theft in a very sophisticated way first to steal people's identity and use that to commit and then go to oregon in order to get a state issued driver's license or an identification card the reason for that shows the sophistication the guidelines actually talk specifically about locating or using things out of jurisdiction being evidence that something deserves sophisticated means the reason coleman went to oregon it's a three hour drive down a three hour drive back which is devoting a day to this she's doing it again again the reason she's doing it is because she knows that it's easier to get idea in oregon oregon those to get washington i d s she's it's a very complicated sophisticated process that she's doing specifically to take advantage of this other jurisdiction to take advantage of what it offers and she wouldn't be doing it because of all the effort involved if it weren't worth it she then uses those to commit specific banks opens accounts each of them puts a thousand dollars into each and then has a method where she spends two days driving around getting back i think one writing checks on the other one in an amount slightly less than the deposit amount knowing that  there's a quick time lag if people one bank check with the other they're going to be told there's money to cover the she's making twenty thousand dollars for to get a run of this doing it again and again targeting exactly the banks that are weak to it and taking is the proper one were guarding the government's allegation that somehow we've made inconsistent arguments about the search dearly and raised some different theory in the reply brief that the theory throughout the the fact that they did other acts not charged with other people i don't see how that relates at all to the who did the charge that you understand i mean i can see that it would be useful to raise reasonable doubt but i don't see why  simple form or a longer form of the multiple conspiracy instruction to show the jury that if they were if they found there was the variance that cardiac refers to that they could then use that reasonable doubt to quit the defendant that's why