all there were a series of questions that were asked of agent great there was a question was there a problem with mr williams credibility well defined problem you didn't believe him correct you know i didn't about buying drugs they didn't believe him williams then went back in january on two separate occasions and then they wired in march and the first time they give him the polygraph test he found it and when he was told that they found him  truthful and material respects he inge the testimony they read minister the test asked more questions he killed again and again he changed the testimony and i believe what's important here is that without the jury knowing this context the grounding mr williams statement they lack the necessary information to evaluate with credibility it's a far cry from evaluating someone who says yeah i initially lie to police official or officer rings who says i didn't believe him at first from a situation where every time that scientifically now the government in its brief emphasizes that my client was a principal in this which actually isn't true it's quite clear from the record that at the most the straight go so was a go between that the person who argue that harden the party or argue well the new shootings happened wasn't any corroboration and that's why williams credibility was so important to an assessment he told the f b i that this meant in the context of other unrecorded discussions he had had with that defendant let me know if you want to do it refer to a drug transaction let me know with you want to do it could very well we flew to a card game there was nothing else that was recorded in this conversation that corroborated this conversation concerned drugs unlike other conversations  confronted him with the polygraph test results which showed he was being distrustful and then he changed his story and we didn't do this once he did this multiple times and this is a far cry from williams getting on the stand  and you have defendant who's a convicted felon so in a sense their background white beaches around them like well they're both convicted drug dealers ones now testifying for the government it sounds like he's come clean it sounds like he's reformed and he truly wants to help that he's been rehabilitated when in fact that's not the case he's still lying to good morning your honor isn't it please the court sherri cam for the government taking a cue from your questions i will just address the polygraph issue unless you have any questions about the sufficiency of the evidence but certainly we think our briefs covered that  with respect to the polygraph well the counsel for the appellants stayed in the beginning that she thought the government misconstrued their position i don't think that's the case our brief did address both of the grounds that the district court cited for excluding the polygraph evidence in this case because of the way it was presented to the court at that time that the court excluded under both rule seven zero two one four zero three which are independently sufficient but it was also sort of two separate respects in which it was excluded the straightforward scientific evidence of the polygraph was excluded and i don't think there's any dispute here that that honor if you're looking to have the jury not be misled or confused for a three well referring of course to undue prejudice also refers to the fact that you have to worry about the jury being misled or confused and i think that that you were involved even though it's a lie it doesn't matter he says oh well then i'm with my story that's all you want to get out that he changed the story well i think the fact that he changed his story did come out and i think there's still a concern here with the polygraph and the polygraph and sort of as decision this court noted that the rest of the jury might give excessive weight going to your point of course that that it's being offered for the truth but also that court this court in that case that the trial court will rarely be discretion by refusing to admit a polygraph that is even if it's for a limited purpose and under limited conditions and i think that really he hears that is the situation the court was confronted with this evidence which i was denied had really very limited probative value and  on the other hand there's this danger of you prejudice confusion misleading the jury when polygraph is mentioned in this case and it was within the court's discretion to perform that balancing test as the district court did and to exclude the evidence on of the fence or that the witness mr williams that changed the story all of that was available for the defense and so in that context there's really very slim evidence that's been excluded here namely the fact that some of those questions and answers were  in the context of a polygraph exam in so in this context given what the district court was facing here i think it was appropriate balancing test that was conducted the district court leave due consideration to all of that the circumstances here and made the call that in this case that evidence should be excluded and this was as as this court has also noted in the hankie decision this is  under surveillance there was no showing he had any contact with a lardy at our i'm sorry a talent was under surveillance there was no showing he had any contact with the lardy and  references to speed i believe were very difficult to hear i even though the williams was under surveillance and it was recorded i believe that the officer could not make out what was being said much of what was reported by williams as to what defendant said in that conversation it was reported b williams and not corroborated by anyone else appellant received a sentence of two hundred and ten months or approximately eighteen years for these offenses surely his conviction really should re