support michelle parth on behalf of mr diaz now we have raised nine issues on appeal and today i would like to focus on the coconspirator statements issue the expert opinion  testimony and the jury instructions issues of if time permits beginning first with the coconspirator statements we've identified four areas of concern for this court referred to as the tax money hearsay the methamphetamine hearsay the roll call hearsay and the murder plot hearsay the good of the government has conceded some error with respect to the math and that i mean hearsay however all of the statements that were admitted under the coconspirator statements exception did not meet the requirement that those statements were in the furtherance of the conspiracy and so i'll trust them one by one  kill now the government's justification for the admittance of that as hearsay was that it was a vital update on the status of the conspiracy and maintained among its members but navarro didn't testify that that was indeed the case he didn't testify that the tax money hearsay was an update on the status of the conspiracy he didn't say that he needed to know this he didn't leader of the gang that just kind of sounds like ordinary course of business update just certainly not defeating the purposes of the conspiracy and it would seem to me to some degree furthering the purpose of the conspiracy i'm just kind of appearing in lay and always continuing to do his job chatter it did not make him change his conduct in any way whether he was taxing or wasn't taxing they were talking so little word of the tax money go  i mean he would be that's part of what his job seemed to be was to ensure that the taxes were the extortion operation was proceeding well i think it's important to note that this hearsay testimony came in sometime in two he didn't do anything with the information and the way that i look at whether or not it's moving the ball forward is it must have some sort of impact on someone's future action you must make a testified that he had heard from some oh no party that rivera had been arrested with a large quantity of mass namely a half pound of methamphetamine again here the government moved to bring this and as a coconspirator statement as well the government at least concedes error on this so and if we take a look also at the roll call here say that i think there's an even stronger argument because while the roll call his hearsay was discovered in the jail cell of a guy the statements of the roll call were never when the statements of the roll call were made that way the declare didn't testify at all we have this document that has something on it and nobody read from the conspiracy says exactly what this is and it is important because the government's justification is that the role she this what you folks do is this how you keep track of your membership what the government's justification for that roll call sheet is that it was made to induce a list made nobody testified that way they also  that the roll call sheet the reason it was a statement in the further into the conspiracy is because it was a statement of strength in numbers nobody testified that way about the  the government use that roll call she in closing argument to make the argument that you just made that it was a directory of the members of the gang but that wasn't the reason why the coconspirator statement was interred they didn't provide a reason why statements without the requirement met that it was made in the furtherance of the conspiracy the justification that we have for the in the further into requirement now comes on appeal didn't come for the district court and these after the fact justifications don't jive with the testimony that was actually given a trial and this court requires strict compliance with the further end overturn prior precedent unless the precedent is clearly irreconcilable with higher authority and i don't think that we can say that the standard is clearly irreconcilable on this point because this court recently used the standard and u s b writer which is an unpublished case but it's from june sixth two thousand and thirteen nine years after crawford so the government also argues that the admission and i would like to make a couple of points about the expert opinion if i may at trial mr navarro was permitted to offer his opinion on a variety of important subjects that larger amounts of drugs would be foreseeable t other members of the gang mr navarro was asked to answer hypothetical question and he was asked what the distribution amount of drugs was finally the government used navarro to decode gang speak and about other people other people were talking about this is all specialized knowledge per this court's decision and figure lopez which makes clear that late testimony results from a process of reasoning familiar in everyday life  testified at length about his experience in the gang experience of extorting drug dealers of drug proceeds his experience beating others and otherwise upholding the tenets of the gang many of which were taught to him by one d ask himself a member of the gang for twenty years so there was ample evidence in the record provided by mr navarro that he by virtue of his personal experience in this entity was in a position to offer his late opinion testimony as he did here of the conspiracy in that of itself is in furtherance of the conspiracy so there is no indication from the case on the circuit that someone had to do something different here or there was a clear update between someone who the jury heard phone calls with respect to mr gill was directly involved in this conspiracy providing money or rather assisting one d s for instance in obtaining pieces of a firearm that one girl wanted to sell mr gallo referenced in a phone call to miss  i do actually run the with respect to the united states versus writer that's one published case two paragraphs long i don't think that is necessarily something that the court should rely upon as indicating that its view the davis supreme court case in our view makes very clear as to whether or not something violates the confrontation because obviously it would be something that's testimonial here the hearsay that issue the only area the only question that arguably would potentially cross over into what might be testimonial i would submit is the methamphetamine the statement about the methamphetamine because it's unclear whether or not that information was received by mr navarro in a court proceeding for instance something that might be testimonial all of the other hearsay is hearsay we argue it's obviously not hearsay but that's for example a matter of a conversation between mr bras and mr navarro before this case was ever indicted constitutional issue when it comes to your say that it is a matter of whether or not it falls in the testimonial box or doesn't and here the only thing that arguably could would be that one long statement with respect to whether it was mr virus or there was a half pound of methamphetamine amply sort of outweighed by all the other evidence that was not objected to which included statements punishment of our of that he was informed that there was a large seizure of methamphetamine from mr rivera that six pounds of methamphetamine were seized from a drug dealer has a silver and that there were answers on a regular basis being sold on one kills behalf during the course of the conspiracy so even if this court were to apply a standard of closing argument and i noticed when i was reviewing the government's answering brief it claims that the jury's verdict could not have been predicated alone on sales with his girlfriend because the jury made