striking similarity to a decision that was made by this case in u s versus brock in fact the the appellant in that case who prevailed was an appellant named dickerson initially the case came down in the middle of our trial last year of mr  mcveigh the issue is really an issue of what the difference between a buyer and seller relationship between an individual who buys narcotics from someone else who's the or who is allegedly the head of a conspiracy and being part of that conspiracy not just them but a relationship with a membership and we we would submit that it's not and if you look at every instance that this that the government alleged in their book in their memo every one of them would seem to indicate i believe that under the scott the the brock indices that they lay out for whether or not a person in spirit or or just the buyer in a cellar we should prevail in brock there were five things that were mentioned that the brockport felt seas of a conspiracy oriole relationship because again it should be a conspiratorial relationship or an individual effectively makes everyone else in the conspiracy an agent for him that's the basis for not only the conspiracy charge but for also bringing coconspirator hearsay declarations other actions by coconspirators the five indices were prolonged cooperation between the parties a level of mutual trust standardised dealings sales on credit and scott to a meeting where they negotiate with another buyer and it's your why him takes the drugs out of his pocket after trip to his home and supplies them to the buyer and he that's jest that don't have to track another case we have to find and nothing evidence to allow a jury to conclude that your client is not simply mr scott's by ear and i don't know how how we can say that the jury couldn't conclude that when he's with mr scott and helping him supply yes yes your honor however sky and mcdade go to a certain place a deal is conducted by the way everything on the tape is mr scott speaking mr mcdaid hands the cash to mr scott that's that was the allegation that was was proven a cash transaction i ask you in a rhetorical question i'm talking about is really your client transfer from his i ask you and this is a rhetorical question does that event's a level of trust in mr mcdaid to be there with mr mcdaid and to get the cash right away i would argue it shows that there's no trust between these two and of what you could argue to the jury is one thing whether or not as a matter of law the jury was precluded from finding trust is what i'm having difficulty with well our argument and has been our argument all along it was an argument before it was submitted to the jury after it was submitted to the jury and here is that there wasn't enough here to get it to the jury that was the decision in brock and we feel there striking relationship between this case and the brock matter i can explain everything that was mentioned in the government same territory and that an which you jury could have come out your own way but isn't there enough evidence of behavior the part of your mind with respect to various people in this bought from several different individuals different conspiracies lived in a different area the area this is are these are and this is evidence that was presented by the government the seller to mr mcdaid was presented by the government the map of the areas that they control which my clients house was not on was presented by the government from the government's evidence the government the evidence in front of the court at the time we made the motion for acquittal we would submit there was not enough to submitted to the jury on the conspiracy charge we also believe that because of the fact that there wasn't enough that the gainey rolling in this is a case where my client was the only one who went to trial it wasn't a situation where if the gainey ruling went for us there was a cure there would have been a curative instruction there should have been no believe that there was not evidence that it's pure and simple and that and following the cases that this court ruled on hawkins and then parker and then brock we look at all the indices there that were set out in those those decisions as to whether or not there was evidence we don't believe that there was thank you very much court judge judge meyer paid particular attention to exactly what this court said in bra indeed when one reads the jury instruction that was given by judge meyer it incorporates language drek lee out o 's reflected in that decision was that dickerson had no relationship at all to the organization in fact they say in in the brock decision that he had no contact with the organization other than when he was jacks that is not who dickerson was dealing with so when you look at the facts of this case the march third incident is one which pretty much pain city entire picture here not only was mcdade with scott  when the actual sale of distribution occurred there was a precursor then where scott meant to it went to meet with this new customer this is supposed to be they're going to distribute a sample of an ounce of crack cocaine in anticipation of  provided the funds in the car bringing individuals presents to mr scott that's something other than a buyer seller relationship as suggested by the defense and has argued on successfully to the jury in this case separate and apart from those events it's relevant we would respectfully submit that mcdade was calling the head of the organization mr scott and mr scott's drug phone us in talking to some underway wasn't talking to some  lieutenant he was talking directly to the head of the organization mr scott beyond that is that there was evidence presented in the record with respect to some of the factors set out in the court's prior cases radios and others  jail or or not well i'd you know it would be a closer question now for sure but there may be enough in itself because the journal alona didn't just include mr mcveigh it include other puke persons who were indicted and i pleaded guilty to being part of this conspiracy there at least three perhaps four different people who were in the journal that scott the head of the organization said he would write to and he would send money to so in combination with the quantity of drugs  mcdade typically was getting quantities of sixty three grams of crack cocaine a time which far exceeds what it's a user quantity the clearly understood in that context of this redistribution and it was me helpful to the organization in moving  quantity of drugs on a regular basis so it might very well have been sufficient with the quantity of the sales separate apart from those items in the record in this case also reflected the nature of the relationship as reflected in rap video the judge meyer was very careful about only admitting certain still photographs from a particular rap video but as  trafficking group they reveled in what they were doing and indeed when they had a video recorded called bricks balls to break switches eight balls of crack cocaine two kilograms more quantities of crack cocaine there are certain persons who are front and center in that video mr scott being one of them another one prominently on display in the video is mr mcdaid and there were several other members of this particular drug organization separate apart from that during the course of the electronic surveillance was done in this case there were intercepts made were scott called and spoke with mr mcdaid because he scott needs seventeen grams of crack to make up so for some bad crack the given the somebody else and the two individuals mcdade and scott then arranged to get seventeen grams of good crack cocaine to scott so scott could complete reimbursing one of his customers who happen to be a high schooler distributing crack cocaine and high school and then he scot at the end of the day literally the end of the day reimbursed mcdade for the seventeen crack seventeen grams of crac mother talking about mutual trust levels mutual trust having his mother go to scott to get drugs for continued distribution or during the electronic surveillance period electronic surveillance mcdade calling scott talking about new customers his mother's people that they were going to get drugs for so they could distribute more price for pain in that fashion in substance then the evidence in this case is very far removed from those facts yes there are three things that i would like to bring up to the court in a factual issues one is the issue of extension of credit and i think in the in the u s versus parker decision the scored that there was a thorough explanation of wh credit is important and why it's it's such an important thing a leader extends credit the leader of a conspiracy extends granted it's a tacit admission that the members extending credit to is selling to someone else and has been successful to do doing that in the past so we could trust in this case here these are the the bits and the evidence of my client buying drugs he bought sixty three grams from an individual the government's witness testified for cash at that point he bought another sixty three grams where the government's witness on cross examination testified that we he went out and got the cash immediately there was one other instance brought up by the state by the government in the argument i'm sorry which indicates that mr scott you shorted me for ten dollars indicating a cash transaction the only other transaction was one where he asked mr mcdaid to extend him credit i would suggest to the court that the credit issue weighs very heavily in favor of the fact that this was a buyer seller relationship because mr mcdaid on almost every occasion paid cash immediately or shortly thereafter and did not involve that mr scott did not give him credit the second or the quickly of the journal and the rap video the journal was a number of people that the argument was made that mr scott help while they were in jail number of people on that list were not part of the conspiracy the rap video i won't go too deeply into the rap video with  the court except to say that on cross examination the government's witness testified that many of the people in the rap video there were two aspects of the rap video one is a number of people on stage and the other was a number of people who were at this club for a new year's eve celebration most of the people there were not part of the conspiracy on one question of the people in the journal who were not part of conspiracy  completely different and i don't want to mislead the court i don't remember what the what the relationship that mr scott had with them was i don't think it was expletive ex explained at the time and i don't know that i brought a question thank you but the fact a matter is on every one of those instances there were people who were not part of the conspiracy mr mcveigh's mother was not charged as part of the conspiracy it tends to show that there was a buyer seller relationship between mr scott and this from that day thank you very much wan