no evidence that anyone was injured as a result of his conduct that he acquired any weapons with it even any claims of terrorist activities were discussed yet he meets the percentage several times that imposes other people committed a similar or even more severe cross currents in the time i have i would like to address or issues the treatment of mr kearney statements by the district court the jury confidential they even allowed the attorney's statement that ronnie would not face prosecution to go unchallenged as a result of this to crown and made the statements that led to his conviction you're honest in this case i think it's important to consider the origin of this interview this interview was initiated not by the f b i the government briefly omits the long history of contacts between the f b i and mr chronic in which they attempted to obtain his cooperation however the interviews in which he made the statements the phone basis for the prosecution was based on his contact with the f b i he has not heard from them since the prior summer and he nature of his ability to live in the united states and to work in the united states they never indicated to him that he faced prosecution in the spring of two thousand and seventeen he retained an attorney to met with him on the understanding that what he said would be held in confidence in denying his motion to suppress the statements tell us being recognized the several courts of appeal as held that versus ha it's not to the contrary in that case the court held that we were forced to contest that is false or misleading would not necessarily render a concession involuntary but that the district c must consider that totality of the circumstances this is a standard which we believe because the district court should have applied and failed to do so your insist types in this they did not say they disagreed with that in doing so they engaged in the type of deception that this court has not confidence the government's attempt to extend hark at into a license for government nudists objection at the end of the jury instructions the trial judge doubled down and he stated the objectionable language that quote there was no violation of any words rights you only have to offer in this context we must consider the sufficiency of the evidence the all the evidence in this case was based principle ie on mystic erroneous statements there was virtually no corroboration operated this is to shroud illegal activity but if he was trying to shroud the activity of supporting terrorism it wouldn't be engaging in activity that could and  a defendant was convicted of these three categories of crimes one providing substantial assistance to terrorists two getting military instruction from a terrorist organization and three fraudulent lee getting united states citizenship in which the f b i had never suggested to him that he was under investigation they wanted him to cooperate in their intelligence activities regarding his will and that's what he met with them on and that was what his understanding approaching a subject of an investigation saying we want to talk to you this was that this was somebody who was engaged in the exchange with the f b i unrelated to his being a subject o investigation and wanted to continue it and what in the attorney for the purpose of contacting the bureau and setting up the meeting and that's what happened you  time that a member of has bill as islamic jihad organization was prosecuted and convicted in the united states why does that matter in terms of on fairness it matters because the the level of sophistication that mr caronna brought to this entire engagement with the f b i that's him apart from virtually any defendant that this court and or others have considered when addressing a our it's not just that he has a bias medical engineering degree and an m b a this is a man who was trained by has an encounter interrogation tactics this is the equivalent of  the f b i agent sitting down and conducting an interview of a cia operative that's an analogy that that can ronnie and drew and so i think that the st crucial part of the district court's voluntariness finding relates to his  st occasion and today in the briefing there were some arguments made about whether kanye understood his target status relative to the f b i investigation and i think that the record demonstrates that he surely please leave mr dembo please leave i'm only going to talk to special agent shannon and not only getting that to the room and that way the participant he also controlled right down to where he was sitting relative to special agent shannon an effort to exert control over the process and so that's those are some illustrations in the record that support your challenge is finding that this was not just voluntary a strategic that's all  the very important findings not only did he give the judge hellishly find that objectively the confidentiality discussion was not about immunity if further found a span of a hearing that lasted for days that he presided over it listen to the testimony certainly made clear that from the agent's perspective anything that they had said about confidentiality is not precluded or the u s attorney's office and proceeding with criminal charges and as judge how it came down it also made those points clear to the defendant that the agent also told the defendant that in order to pursue the benefit the immigration benefits the crime was speaking they would have to share the information that crime was providing with other parts of the u s government and it up and potentially the canadian authorities and this discussion is at age sixty one of the and there are judge hellishly his findings including and no five and so this is another often manifested this understanding of this during the interview process at one point when asked about the two thousand time trip to china he said that there was some information that he was quote too scared to share at that age four  interview process concluded mr gamble on behalf of crown he threatened to go to the media to describe the situation there is the complete opposite of confidentiality and at a similar example when the f b i arrested way in which clearly demonstrated in the record demonstrated that whatever was said about confidentiality between mark and the f b i agents prior to the interviews it was not something again but no five so that's that was the st argument presented and appropriately rejected by the district court the nd related to the set of notes that marked them until handed the agent during the april rd interview  i think i start off with one important point about those notes they don't reference confidentiality to the extent confidentiality was the lynchpin of the negotiations between daniel in the agent before and so in that context where the document doesn't mention confidentiality it already incriminated himself at the st interview as just poor pointed out the agent did not adopt that document they simply handed  address questions in the court thank you very much judge cures any questions no questions thank you judge cooler if i have a couple of and when the district court was addressing the question of whether the statements were voluntary the fact that the defendant perceived himself as having so much control that he could select who was in the room and where they say that were  supported the corresponding that that the defendant was in that room voluntarily he was speaking voluntarily and he was there because you wanted thank you i have another question but was there any kill recto harm to you know your honor i am not i believe that there were the victims are very real tell me who they were the victims were are people who use the buildings that mr years before they have the before he made any conversation with the f b i is that correct and what was the danger of if you if they left the organization to your honor on the st point about nothing as has transpired yet i can't dispute that but that is not the sort of the core question of the way has i general operate mr kronk is providing information to have at buildings how people enter and exit or already a simple as the uniforms that people wear every piece of that information if if collected in a concerted effort by multiple operative critical infrastructure at armories in the city where the national guard were deployed from in the event of a terrorist attack or in the event of a natural disaster in other words the defendant was part of the act planning or  facilities where you could neutralize the response of this federal government if and if the city is attacked or the city does experience some kind of disaster and so i i can't dispute that there is  catastrophic consequences and that was one of the things that the district court considered and in thing but it certainly wasn't the only thing i think important general the parent choice of the district court took very seriously and certainly that the guidelines are not the be all end all in a situation like this but i think that in terms of the reasonableness of it and an important keep in mind that this was support to the terrorist organization we see the one hundred and fifteen months as providing money to the group and for buying and machine guns and grenades he actually went to somalia to fight and he got  hundred and eleven months in another case cited on those cases the defendant joined isis and wanted to kill president obama and scheme to bomb coney island travel to syria to fight for isis and in anything to support a terrorist activities and the so called surveillance your honor as has the government points out in its grief what with that surveillance it was going to google and i think one of the the most common ways in which those cases are a good thing we should all of them this one is that they involve investigation and that in this case mr cronkite did actually things over a long period of time joined had went to the st training in early two thousand and then he was recruited to the islamic jihad organization in two thousand and eight and then there was a prolonged series of operations packing that he was given in lebannon came back to the united states to execute it was not limited to google or talked about actually conducting video surveillance think the other important point the judge hellerstein and i think that it's one that is relevant is evaluating whether or not that was reasonable and very important that that sentence reflect seriousness of these private enterprise class that the law enforcement and intelligence community do not have to wait until a defendant perpetrated a massive attack on one o