counts which were robberies instead mr ingram's theory at trial was that he wanted to test the government's proof as to whether he possessed a firearm in furtherance of the robberies and i'd like to talk today about the strength of the evidence that mr ingram carried a firearm during the st in time robbery which the at what the eyes of india property on october st it was the government's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that mr ingram knowingly possessed a firearm on that date and at the close of the government's evidence charl counsel moved for a directed verdict saying that the government had not provided evidence by which a reasonable testimony that a real gun was present at least one of the robberies surveillance videos and photos of firearms which appeared to show a real gun which were counts six  eight mr ingram's actions with the gun in count sixty seven dollars and eight dollars which included counting down telling or implying to witnesses that he would shoot and testimony of witnesses who heard heard or saw a gun and again that's in count sixty seven and eight you had witnesses who heard a gun who saw a gun in close proximity and it's our position that none of that evidence is persuasive to count five in the  witness never testified that she saw mr teil testified that at the close of business on that day she sat at the back of her shop facing away from the door she was approached from behind and that she felt at that that really is it comes down to what the question is in this case is did the church the jurors were instructed explicitly consider the evidence on each count and charge separately and did the jury at that point cumulate the evidence and say well because it looks like we can see a gun in the surveillance and in the footage and in the testimony on count sixty seven and eight we're going to infer from the testimony of mr having something in her back footage from the surveillance video showing something against her back that that something was a gun and the only evidence for miss patel wasn't was a period of two minutes she had to testify that she had no experience with guns so we have a lay witness with no experience with guns who doesn't see a gun and testify something hard was against her back and a photo as cracked up correctly points out showing something held against her back was it was the jury legally precluded and if so what's what's the source of the law from considering that a gun was used in each of the other robberies that occurred within the seven day period think the jury was and that's a question that i tried a lot to run down in that and what is the actual answer to that question and in our brief we say you know that that the jury was specifically instructed consider the evidence on each count separately you have to consider you have to prove on each count beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed a firearm right but then a serial robbery case right that's happening within a very very limited amount of time  there there is a concept in law that i don't my reply is it was the proper word accumulated that way why why isn't the better reference is the jury sent in kind of in keeping with what judge roeder was observing you can look at the photograph and say i don't know what he's pushing against her back from the photo but it's something right because if it was nothing she probably would have turned around so what are you doing so someone's getting pushed against his back or her or her back yeah ok and she had she very much believe even though she didn't see it it was a goner so or some kind of weapon she didn't i can't the evidence from the other robberies inform that finding by the jury well you know that what the victim say makes a lot of sense because he committed four other three other robberies within this time period they all had guns and i have well i think that the instructions to the jury are the most informative in this case consider the evidence on each count separately i don't know the answer to whether or not the jury  facebook video or was that legal where the jury could consider the facebook video but the judge limited the facebook video to only if you've decided that what he carried was that was that he that what that he likely did what he was accused of entitle to consider that facebook video to decide whether or not the country not to decide whether or not he carried a gun right now and i think that is a reason that that if that's right the reason that that's right is because it shows he had an three can be considered well i think that again that the guy that the jury was required to consider whether or not beyond a reasonable doubt the government proved on that tape he possessed a firearm and i think it's persuasive also that this was the st time robbery and as the government  points out you know he did some very specific things in the following robberies he pointed guns directly at people he threatened to shoot he counted down on his hands he wasn't shy about showing a gun to people in the subsequent robberies this st robbery was very different and i think well the victim didn't think he was playing around i mean i can tell you that right from rudy the evidence machine think this was just some some time something being feigned now i think that's right but this this robbery was very different than the robberies that followed three and in the course of the the actual cases from this court this robbery is very different than some of the cases that talk about whether or not  it's proven that a firearm was possessed mr ingram in the st robbery we don't have a defendant who virtually indicated in any way that he had a gun or threatened to shoot anyone in count five he did not have a something against my back it was hard and we have a witness also with no familiarity with guns we don't have somebody who like in the last in time robbery could hear a click and could recognize from that click that that was the sound of a bullet being chambered we have somebody we have we have a lay witness we have a st in time robbery we have a lay witness who is completely unfamiliar with guns who did not see a gun we had a defendant who never made a statement that there was a gun who never made any threat to shoot a gun who didn't count down on this table that on his facebook latigo a month prior and that was only relevant to consider whether or not if there was a gun whether it's real testimony goes to whether or not the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he carried a gun on that day and i see them in my rebuttal time i'd like to say th may have please the court lawrence hills and for the united states there were two issues brought on the pill but since mr ingram counsel was only focused on the sufficiency of the evidence argument i'll begin there and if the court would like me to talk about the nd issue i'll indictment questions were asked about the testimony regarding the other robberies specifically regarding robbery story and robberies for there was evidence witness testimony from witnesses who not only saw the gun but they saw that gun close proximity don't you think miss miss garners making a fair point though is she not going to be careful with the jury don't you saying i don't know whether he had a gun or he didn't have a gun on that st robbery but he definitely had him on three and four and that's enough for me on one well the jury was what she's that's what she's worried about isn't that a fair worry not in this case your honor why not because the jury was instructed as ms mourner pointed out that it should look at each count separately however the jury was not interrupted that they should look at the evidence in a vacuum and as this court pointed out there was a robbery that occurred on the th a robbery that occurred just the next day on the th and then a robbery on the th and th a rd of the jury could very well use the evidence that was presented to it on the about the robbery that occurred on the th that's when to get at on the rd as well as the defendants face book account as to make a reasonable inference that the defendant also possessed a gun on the robbery that occurred on october th of two thousand and seventeen and there were strong circumstantial evidence regarding the fact that the defendant possessed a real firearm on the th as well st of all the court talks about the still frame photograph i believe is exhibit number eight in the brief that was presented to this court by the united states and in that particular photograph it shows mr ingram with something pressed against the victim's back the victim described it as hard and based on her knowledge of guns or lack thereof she believed to be a gun we know from the next day based on ms cops testimony that the defendant used a real gun we also have testimony from the victims in the rd robbery that they had experience with guns and this is just four days into the odd days after that st robbery where the defendant mr ingram actually pointed a gun at two of the victims victims who had experience with guns and they always keeps a pistol want him and he made that statement just one month prior to the robbery in question on october th of two thousand and seventeen so the evidence was sufficient and we believe that a reasonable jury not only could have but d we get the same testimony about feeling real hard metal well if it was a knife we might likely also see blood because as we can see from exhibit number eight whatever that object is it is pressed firmly into the victim's back so i'm talking about maybe the the reverse because of the abundance of evidence in the other three robberies robberies that occurred in a very short time of one another so the jury was not asked to speculate because it had sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that it did and that's angleton he'll foreclose on any argument that an attempt object robbery is anything but a crime of violence i'm as this court stated in hill and attempt to commit a crime that is classified as a crime of violence is a crime of violence and in england vent or sees me that if an individual incidents to commit a crime and that crime is a crime of violence then that individual has number one not only taken a substantial step towards the commission of that crime but that individual