well here the last case to be argued united states versus sc can though there were no state tax charges in the indictment at all over defense objection the court scaled the government accept the prequel but still permitted the government to introduce evidence related to eighteen tax years on charge to conduct nine years of un charged double tax years and nine years of un charge new york state tax years and predictably the government then made a propensity argument to the jury on these  counts are going to the jury galley fact misconduct was prevented from it and went on for decades of course the government was referring to the similar activity because the indictment  arguing for an inference rule for four percent that also ignored the protocols set out by this court judge newman's opinion pick a lot which is that the government should wait until the conclusion of the defense case and it seemed to me when i looked at the record that you had already d questioned didn't and well not not me personally on i didn't try to case but i guess the course i know the government has referred to i think two references that the got the government points to was really about the to reality on on on some of the false statement charges but the for the government to argue that it can introduce eighteen years of burden in order to say and this is what the government said we need to show that this lawyer sometimes while the testicular and therefore he has the knowledge that attention to the escrow case to be escrow account but i noticed that there was a major transfer into being escrow account which would you have been  which is larger than ten thousand but that did that transfer in the cell called attention to the track to the escrow account or are there some reasons there are many steps and as to whether these calls attention so i wondered the record wasn't we weren't able to get some parts of the record and i wondered if you have anything to say about well i think the evidence is your honor that the the four bank deposits went into the escrow account and within twenty four hours something in the neighborhood of fifty thousand dollars from the escrow account was transferred into the office operating account  allegation is that if you break up deposits so that they are slightly less than ten thousand dollars the threshold for triggering a c t r that you're guilty of structuring you're in particular what i would say is that i have never seen and i don't think the government that was cited a case that involves folks you posit including two deposits that the government needed on the theory that if you can prove that several deposits were made over a couple days then the jury can infer based on the number of deposits and the amounts i think i think two or three were made on one day and one was made on the on the next day and i think two of them were at the same branch near the gollies office i think at least one was  the contract right you know what's his client's and neither the government nor the defense called his client to determine whether rented what point the client exercise that to feel as they did in the district court below but for the reasons that were in the government brief the judgment below should be a part of in the interest of time i will limit myself to the issues that counsel ra d unless the court has additional questions with respect to count two the evidence was amply sufficient to support the jury verdict as to the structuring there are three elements that the government was required to prove for that count as the defendant knew of the t p r requirement at the time of the transactions that he actually engaged in acts of structuring and that he did so with the intent to of be the fifty six thousand dollars into his operating account however all that was wasn't in for being transferred or with this gal he had his account for the pro and operating in the same thing but he simply went to the bank and if you can predict your answer to judge calibrating i have and i'd like to just ask a kind of general question here i was struck by a couple things that the appellant's counsel pointed out of overcharging potentially count three making false statements in count five obstructing an eating the administration of the tax laws on the same conduct and similarly in count eight obstruction of justice and nine perjury based on the same conduct the introduction of the state tax returns as well as federal tax returns when i didn't see any sign that they hacks evasion was at issue and even acknowledg mean that he was acting as a lawyer to get a one thousand two hundred dollars from a client and that has very little to do with the rest of the things so that is the government was was brought an action the state supreme court to litigate the issue of whether he was entitled to the return of his money this litigation involving contract claims the defense is going to resolve these issues years ago and more chosen by the plaintiff buyer until this opportunity was lost what a member of the u s attorney's office went out to nassau county moved to intervene in the case and asked the court to stay the matter affidavit which was alleged to be both perjury and obstruction of justice i think probably my time is about to expire and so i thought your time expired a while ago but go ahead you can send a shot though i i would