as and we have raised in our appeal the single claim of trial court error for denying rule twenty nine motions for judgment of acquittal which were made during or after the government closed its case in chief and then again at the conclusion of proceedings which is a sufficiency of the evidence issues if it is your honor and and i understand that is do novo review from our perspective is the court knows from reading this mission's daniel crabs was acquitted of counts five and six convicted of count seven and also convicted of count one which was the conspiracy charge count seven being the aiding in assisting charge it is the two thousand and ten return yes or so so from the from the defense perspective from our perspective we can assume from the verdicts that the jury reached that daniel crabs was convicted of the conspiracy based on is a bookkeeper into us to further daniel trained her to write on a piece of paper each day the revenues from the revenue streams of the club including sale house fees doroth credit cards a t m and then he also trained her to input those numbers minus the house and door fees which were being skimmed into a spreadsheet on the club computers the spreadsheet of the club did not contain the columns in which the skimmed house and dorothy's information would be important that was george's money doesn't that evidence show that he knew what was going on as far as not reporting the house and who are these in isolation perhaps but not in light of all of the evidence isolation is all we're talking about jury could hear that but the question is was this sufficient evidence that a reasonable juror could find that your client was in on the game my position is no my position is that that vance edwards is the individual that trained daniel career as to to do the books in the first place vance edwards i believe testified that in two thousand and ten around two thousand and ten he left and that at the same time that the cabaret three was coming into existence which draws me back to the stephen townsend issue and vance edwards i believe his testimony was the daniel president know what he was doing didn't know how to run a club actually carol herself indicated that most of her job was ministerial that she inconsiderate actual bookkeeping it was more data entry and that cited within my belief is he didn't he know that there were two computer as the house and then through fees so there was a discrepancy between case one which is the writing that she did and she was instructed how to do that by in case to which she was putting into the house computers the difference being the two items which were skimmed during that same time period i believe your honor that you will see an exhibit and i was i was  trial counsel so i know that i highlighted this during my closing argument daniel crabs had prepared a spreadsheet for use by the book keepers that had the columns for the house and door fees later he did that was durand that same time period and so again as far as the second set of books is concerned the second set of books were stored in david corrals his computer there was no evidence ever linking daniel crass to that second set of books other than the testimony i mean tain of ste townsend and stephen townsend himself could not recall in fact definitively whether daniel graz was the person that had given him the spreadsheet there were there were two second sets of books one was the house computer in which there was no house and then and then through the house and door fees and david's computer so there were two computers a use the house computer and they would give you the house computers the first set of books you know the second set of books was the was supposedly well the input to the house computer was a paper done by carrol and that had the two items which were skimmed the house computer didn't have those two items david's computer had the rack and the spread sheets that were submitted to stephen towns and  spread sheets ultimately the government established did have the house and dorothy or did not did not have nothing dorothy collins in them but again at the same time period all the crashes were present and having their own tax returns done by mr townsend and i keep looping back but that's the essence of my argument is that steven townsend was not anywhere close to definitive as to daniel cra providing him that second set of books and daniel crabs as x x during the two thousand and ten were really no different than any other book keepers x and i'm not sure if my time is like for both of us it's and good morning my name's adam team it please the court i'm here representing george carouse we are central here many of the same arguments in terms of sufficiency of the evidence although my client was found guilty of the conspiracy as well as the assisting in the filing of a false return that was zero eight zero nine and zero ten five six and seven in terms of the comps and so there were obviously significant evidence presented that mr george carouse was responsible for much of the day to day operations there was testimony of course that there was a significant other folks were also responsible for day to day operations however there was no evidence that really other than ultimately hiring some bookkeepers that he was intimately involved in terms of any of the actual  any of the actual responsibility for the day to day record keeping other than providing some of the numbers on a daily basis to david crass but there was lots of other folks who were doing that as well there was also evidence that mr george korat as was knowledgeable in regards to actual income your honour's have very likely seen the videotape in which the undercover officer agent came in went ahead and and was attempting to at least act as if he was buying and mr crass provided some income information but that doesn't get to the issue of whether in fact there was a conspiracy all it indicates is that he was aware of the actual income that was being produced by the club and so the government had essentially set forth the four overt acts and the brief goes through and talks about each one of those in terms of the lack of sufficiency of the evidence a the destruction of records there's really very little evidence that in fact there were very many records destroyed at all quite to the contrary an expert witness called by by daniel corrals tiffany coach was able to go ahead and put put the actual numbers together based on all of the records so given there was very little evidence other than vance edwards and said words provided some testimony about being told by a number of individuals that he should be a destroying the record his testimony quite frankly in terms of cross examination was unclear in a what those records were and b whether in fact he went ahead and destroyed them and and also just as only that was also relating to marcy correct as and of course the jury found that there was insufficient evidence in terms of the ultimate question of guilt to find her guilty and she was there quit  so we have this standard of review here which i assume you would agree means that we look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution haven't you already a den sufficient evidence i don't believe so because again as i also indicated the evidence just has to be more than mere speculation it has to of course be be enough for for a reasonable tr fact to make a determination that mr george carouse committed these overt acts and again there is simply insufficient evidence in this record again even viewing even under that standard of review that in fact mr george carets did anything in terms of destruction up for grabs and let me ask you question wasn't george the person who presented the financial statements to the  income tax preparer in two thousand and two thousand and nine was a number right now he present of those documents right well those documents didn't include the skimmed items the answer is as it was very unclear and if you look at i believe just like council indicated he was also present there too and in fact go ahead and have his own tax returns prepared at the same time so again he was he was there also providing his own information is your argument that since george was providing the house and or fees his only income is george's monies i think it was referred to by some of the managers as george's money then there is no loss to the i r s well the answer is that it is that mr evans was unfortunately and unable to go ahead and provide much testimony in regards to exactly what the nature of that income was when when he was questioned whether in fact precisely what the actual actual document that was provided containing what that contained he was unable to do go ahead and provide sufficient evidence from our perspective even viewing his  his testimony in the light most favorable to the government terms of in terms of the other overt acts again the maintenance of the second set of the profit and loss again there is absolutely no evidence that david the owner but the take was yes but just like many many other folks went ahead and quite frankly all the managers were also doing that on a daily basis as well and so just because in fact the caresses knew that there was a second set of books and in fact was involved in any activity in terms of either their creation or them or their maintenance same thing in regards to the we've already discussed in terms of the in accurate info to the preparers again i submit that based on keith the evidence testimony doesn't get us there in terms of the terms of the two thousand and ten pete townsend was the last prepare to go ahead and provide that also insufficient evidence in terms of that mr george krebs did anything at that meeting to go ahead and provide insufficient evidence that meeting orange yes he was daniel yes that's it right correct so well no i believe there was testimony if i'm not mistaken that david was also present your position is a davis the one who handed the voice up i think i've developed a little fall sore throat that's not the spew did that the cure as strip clubs operated with two sets of books or that david cure as filed false tax returns that didn't report a million and a half dollars in that cash house and or her income and the defendant's own expert forensic accountant tiffany couch testified that she traced that unreported money to the bank accounts of both daniel career as and george caress her testimony appears in daniel's xor governments excerpt of record at one ninety eight now george cure as as you just heard believes that the evidence was not sufficient to convict him because he didn't really have any understanding of the accounting process at the strip clubs but that ignores  you've mentioned that george career as daily acted as a conduit of the take of the previous day's take to david george career as agrees that he did that he in fact in his brief he says it's an it's an undisputed fact he did that but he denies that that gave him any knowledge that david was entering the those figures every day in a particular order on a second set of books the record says otherwise because when david caress testified on direct examination and explained how this conduit process began he said that because he stayed up late at the clubs and he got up late the next day he needed somebody in the family to give him the numbers and he testified that he told his father he was putting these daily numbers in his computer this appears at the government's excerpt of record for george career as at page one hundred eighty and i'm going to read exactly what david  he said quote after explaining what what i just said he said quote i got in a routine where i would ask my dad to take the numbers for me and then he said i'll call you meaning george when i get up and i'll put them in my computer so there is conclusive proof that george correct has knew that david career has was entering the house and door information and all the other information in a second set of books suggest it is in the face of this record really cannot be genuinely disputed of course  you correctly stated judge that when george career as was negotiating the sale of the strip clubs with the undercover agent he showed a really quite masterful understanding of all of the revenue numbers and he in fact he told this special agent during this april two thousand and eleven interview that the reason he was negotiating for the sale instead of his son david who owns the clubs and you would expect as an owner would have a better understanding of the numbers that he george had a better understanding of the club's revenues than even the owner  honor of course the jury was properly instructed by judge jones that none of the defendants had to personally committed an overt act an overt act just had to be committed by someone involved in the conspiracy those instructions are in george's excerpt of record at forty nine and fifty one so it's not contested that david corrals filed false tax returns those are the overt acts alleged as overt act number four in corrals also called the bookkeeper judge vance edwards who had been the long time manager who converted to being a bookkeeper to make sure that he was getting rid of the old house and door records f t marcy cure as told edwards to sort of pick up where she left off she was and came to him whole dirty and disgusted about having to do it and she ordered him to do it and mr ed testified that george career as called him to make sure he was getting it done and that's in our excerpt our record at sixteen to eighteen and that's overt act number one alleged in the indictment i've already explained he gave these two false spread sheets to mr evans the return prepare so that the return preparer could prepare the two thousand and eight two thousand and nine tax returns or david career as an overt act number three so the record clearly supports frankly even without the benefit of the appellate standard of review that george career as committed all of the overt acts that are alleging count one now with respect to daniel career as i just like to clean up a little factual i think error unintentional by m carroll who was one of the book keepers that daniel career as trained worked at the clubs and did its books from mid two thousand and nine to mid two thousand and ten that's in the government's of record from her testimony at pages twenty six and thirty three so ashley carroll did the books for a year and that was before the house and door wrecked the house and door  daily amounts were put in the first set of books so she left by the time that happened that the elements of the two offenses because the conspiracy to count the conspiracy count describes a crime that is the agreement to commit the crime not the substantive committing of an offense as the other counts did so it is quite likely that the jury found that from all the circumstantial evidence of daniel corrals his involvement in the  cheating scheme which includes some conduct that i'll talk about in a moment that we haven't addressed yet but they found that all of that conduct indicated he agreed to help with the family's basically to enter into the family tax cheating conspiracy but when it came to the substantive offense of aiding and assisting which requires some significant act to assist the jury found only that daniel carouse is handing over of the false spreadsheet in two thousand and ten to that tax repair return preparer satisfied that element their biggest argument their strongest argument is that when the accountant testified at the trial he  by saying unequivocally that daniel handed him the spreadsheet and answered questions about it at the meeting on cross examination mr graef incident did a good job working with what he had and to set up his cross examination he had mister townsend discuss the interview that he gave with especially with the with the i r s case agent just ten months after the meeting and mr townsend testified that in that interview he also told the special agent when his memory was presumably much more fresh than when he was testifying that daniel corrals gave him the spreadsheet so the jury hearing that mr townsend told the special agent just ten months after the meeting that daniel gave the spreadsheet to him and then testifying at trial that daniel gave the spreadsheet to him and entered questions the jury was more much more likely to believe and apparently did believe that daniel in fact did give him the spreadsheet mr graef once and did the best job he could too i have mr townsend express a little bit of uncertain beat but of course that didn't work at the trial court level and under the review standard here the court has to take it in the light that's most favorable to the government that is in your hands or other evidence that shows that in addition to the handing over the the reports that would also support the jury's finding for both counts for daniel yes yes i mean listen the substantive can well at that time of course your honor book keepers of the daniel trained were  for the first half of twenty ten not entering the house and door fees in the first set of books for the entire year those book keepers were  transmitting either to george here as but sometimes to daniel clear as the daily take from the previous day's previous day's tape to be transmitted to david even without david's testimony that he told his father he was entering these numbers in his computer into the second set of books it's almost impossible not to believe that the jury understood that both daniel and george knew that they the david was working on a second set of books and although it's nowhere in the record it's a reasonable inference that if a david told his father that's what he was doing he told his little brother that's what he was doing so all of the book keeper related functions that daniel continued to do into two thousand and ten  by themselves should have supported the substantive conviction but certainly when added to the pretty strong testimony of mr townsend that he handed over that false spreadsheet it's now the other thing i want to point out because it's a little not obvious detail but it's important is it's not disputed that for the second half of two thousand and ten the first set of books had house and door revenues put put in the on columns off to the side there were still no specific columns for house and door and mr townsend testified that he believed based on the context of his conversation in that meeting that daniel had printed out the the spreadsheet that he got for two thousand and ten but that spreadsheet had no house and door revenues on it that means that daniel had to take the extra step of removing the six months this of house and door that was recorded on the spreadsheet in order to give what i'll call a clean spreadsheet a clean false spreadsheet to mr townson and there's all the testimony in the case was consistent that daniel was the only person who had the knowledge to use the spreadsheets because if there's nothing