simple in their essence are really sort of like a drug case where it's a simple possession type situation is first sufficiency of the evidence goes are two things that we basically argued one that  the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my client actually was the one who put this information to the computer transferred it to the accounts and then it was transferred back and forth  shutterfly accounts or eventually seized he was found in his home for months six months later after these images were supposedly transferred now there was nobody else in the home at that time counsel's brief correctly delineates said there were two bedrooms in the house but there's no evidence that he physically did these actions and that's really just the essence of that argument so are you conceding then that his computers were used to download this information and post it to the shared site as well as his accounts you're just saying it wasn't him i think the evidence shows that there are mirror look or they have other names for it on his computer was owned by him and he had two computers he had a desktop and laptop now there's gaps in the proof that a o l doesn't  have information from the local line because he had dial up service which is a little bit different in the digital that we all have but i think it's clear that he was in his house he owned  house and the computers were his he had purchased them there was evidence that he had purchased them so again if you're acknowledging that his computers were used and his e mail accounts were used to download this information initially and then post it on the shared site yes you're just saying that there's insufficient evidence that he did it yes ok i'm not trying to argue something that's not obvious here but and secondly there's an trip up on my verbiage you know i'm trying she said when they got the the hard drive in the mirror images she tested them with what was some trial software then said that she got the help from an individual by the name of shumway that was with the f b i that between the two of them they pulled information out of the unallocated areas and the deleted areas and that's the information that was used in this case i think it's pretty clear that she had conflicts in her testimony because she's the only one the that tested this equipment she a ritually of the grand jury said that it was a four hour period that this was downloaded then later on she said it was an eleven hour period that it was downloaded she changed the number of images that were downloaded from grand jury four hour period the periods were changed as she testified all i'm saying is that there can be if inferred a reasonable doubt from the fact that she changed her testimony on a lot of these essential issues and essentially she's the the essence of the case the case is basically that she found the images she is the want to beat up the charts she's the one that testified in court that this was down lo during a period of time where she felt that you know mr davis could have done this there's no evidence of course mr davis was home at this period of time but there goes to my first argument his account his q with somebody who was on line with his accounts when these downloads were done yes that's correct ok so hot how do these inconsistency center testimony undermine the critical evidence in this case well she's the only one the test of the hard drive we have her word that this is what was on the hard drive and she has three different descriptions of how long the person was on how much evidence was taken and what she did with the hard drive now all i'm saying is that there is conflict in the evidence and that that can lead to a beyond the reasonable doubt argument but how do those conflicts as you represent them go to whether or not there were pornographic images on these computer computers that were downloaded through his respective accounts well if the argument is that they may not have been there because she's the one that manufactured this evidence does she did have there was evidence of one point  time where she apparently said i want to get this mr davis to one of her employees i believe that's in the record she is motivated to try to find evidence to indict mr davis and with their motivation  anyway that's the essence of my argument justice thank you no thank you please the court kelly greening on behalf of the united states the jury's verdict in this case were amply supported by the evidence the trial including evidence that the defendant's own computers were used to post over one thousand that essentially the government did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the defendant who uses computers at the time conceding the fact that those computers were used to post and upload images of child pornography but the overwhelming evidence the trial shows otherwise including evidence to the defendant's own shutterfly account which was registered in his name and his e mail address is the one that was used to post those images of child pornography on the website they were posted on august thirtieth website additionally the defendant is not disputing that he was the owner of the computers in his home so i won't at this point go into that evidence that a friend of had owned the home since one thousand nine hundred three those were his computers in terms of the argument that the defendant makes now about gaps in evidence with the agent supervisory special agent mcdaniel mcdaniel all first a note for the panel that many of these arguments were not raised in the defendant's brief before this coup art but they were raised before the jury and the jury considered and rejected these arguments in terms of the defendant or excuse me special agent mcdaniels word on the hard drive including the images that were found on that hard drive those images were also found and discussed by the forensic examiner john shumway who testified that he reviewed metadata on the defendant's computers and it proved that the defendant had used those computers to upload images of child pornography the a o l witness substantiated the information that the defendants online account which again was registered in his name address phone number and paid for by his credit card was on line at the exact same time those images were posted your honour's the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the user of those computers who posted those images on august thirtieth of two thousand and thirteen if there are no to ask you to reduce them out thank you thank you very much cultural the case is taken under advisement and the court will be in research