twenty fifteen and mr injury is entire participation in this drug conspiracy took place in california in the central district of california additionally during mr renshaw reus twenty four hour period of participation in this truck the conspiratorial agree net to join the conspiracy it's plain from the aliments in conspiracy that for a individual defend it to be culpable of conspiracy there has to be that meeting of minds and according to the evidence in this case mr roger we have to decide the conspiracy issue before we decide where the case should be brought actually yes i think that we need to the government  act in furtherance of the conspiracy now if you want to argue that there he wasn't a member of the conspiracy you know maybe that's later on if they're worth finding to that effect but for all intensive purposes he's in a twenty four hours from no started when he joined the conspiracy his offense was conspiracy and yes once he joins in with the case all lester those who come on later you know and himself did not and from the time he joined his conspiracy forward there was no contact with your resume is your argument depends upon reading the statute that offense doesn't mean criminal offense i e conspiracy would have to be ad begun continue your completed i had a loss yes you're actually disagree that conspiracy in this case means a conspiracy that mr manchuria wasn't part  do think that we need to look at what mr winter react participated in and the point at which she began in the conspiracy of facts the court also should consider go back thirty to thirty seven a has to be read in conjunction with the constitution in conjunction with this court's holdings that then you should be strictly interpret it in this case and the second circuit has followed this line of reasoning the court looked at not only technically whether there is affirmative evidence in the record that he was not part of a conspiracy prior to that date prior to that you know there's a reason affirmative evidence on the record that he did not find out about the job until june third there's a feminist evidence in the back yard that the only reason he responsibility for all i've done before except that our are wrong also says in terms of substantive liability in terms of liability or something think about mines in terms of liability for drug a man does an individual is only because you challenge the jury instructions here could be the jury instructions that your client proposer counsel proposed here didn't have the bells and whistles that you're now saying it should have why didn't you did propose a instruction that did not include the added language that the government included in its proposed instruction by the district court rejected trial counsel's purpose instruction adopted the government's proposed instruction there is no he cannot be held responsible for any acts before he actually joined the conspiracy and that there's some sort of factual finding somewhere that he join a conspiracy as of june third and i would think that a number of grounds first we have never been in california maybe he was but the entire incident regarding this one individual took place in california and then he has to go all the way to pennsylvania him try t hundred forty six thousand dollars for the other that but when you look at that as your honor noted the principal reason for what they did there what happened was the defendant was in the netherlands gets a phone calls from new york importing ecstasy to the united states he's argues well i didn't know those phone calls came from commerce they said it has to be perceivable to that defendant that it would have an effect in interstate commerce in the southern district then eastern district where most of the activity took place so in that case whether or not that's correct is not does not matter of pennsylvania his actions all took place in california really is there any have mining anywhere is just exactly where he did join there's no finding but that is the burden of the government to show it's the government's burden to show that he someone julien's a conspiracy after x that will of the weight whatever drug is relevant the weight prior to that date not a committed himself in doing saudi government i believe was relying on the language of the guidelines one by one point three i think it is a one but if we look at that language in particular that could vision of the ry a conspiracy i'm gone after a delivery as happened and say that person is hired as a bookkeeper or somebody who's just trying to keep track of everything that this conspiracy has sold back and forth throughout the prior month when he accepted the payment he really wasn't aiding and abetting the sale i don't you know i actually think that it's i mean if i registered with judge i wouldn't realize that that was wrong and that there was an issue with it had been raised so i don't think i knowledge issue he's collecting money on behalf that is aiding and abetting it is it is certainly an act itself the commission of an act regardless of whether it fits that criteria  known that there was a prior delivery under any circumstances the judge whether using either one of the one of the one point three provisions even subsection to do so only with respect to offenses of the character for which grouping would be required grouping would be required although responsible for those acts so i think no matter which analysis you apply the judge here the judge got it right and there certainly was no point there make it right thank you very much