added and the fact that the agent wasn't clear on where she was he believed to be the where the where the best occurred is there anything else in the way this case was tried that makes it that it didn't happen in dallas well i guess the best way i can sort of analogized associates you know this you know person you know the government and construct because they don't know what we're talking about and the court also acknowledged maybe we should give them some sort of clarification about what the government's talking about this so you know it seems to me that other than objecting to that not giving of the unanimity of the instruction was there also objection made to the way that the charge was constituted i can you refresh your recollection i do not believe them was ip address to him because the power but i don't think they could put him at that location on that particular day it was he as opposed to someone else who  actually yes that's my question what you know what more would you want that you would then not have raised this point on feel what more what i think that would show the scene was you know on the days us that we were responsible that would be more substantial evidence i think in addition to that there needs to be some evidence that she was  morgan chase the j p morgan chase at the count is the one that the payments need to have come from in order to link him up and that's not what's in the ok counsel also you had noted that you tried to put your flash drive into the record and on the record excerpts and you had a difficulty with that and we of course apologize that you had a difficulty with that we were working on being able to do electronic transfers between the district and the courts of appeals and we're that's hopefully it may be the beginning of the year before we have that ironed out but we recognize that that's an issue but in the future you can always and mr hill strapped this you may have electronic documents as well you can always say the number in the district court and then we can request it and  the issues raised on appeal and given the overwhelming evidence mr solmes guilt presented at trial unless the court prefers i'll start with the jury charge argument on count one the move to the sufficiency challenge and then the intent wa is there some reason that that was included in the closing argument because i believe it stated that that is not the theory of the case that's correct your honor that's not the government's theory of the case and i think the trial record bears that out my understanding is in closing argument the government was attempting to put everything in context there was a reference that this may have been because of count or worry i think any reference to mr sel receiving the check at some point in time in africa and it's not clear from the record we know that the check was mailed to kenya in february of two thousand and sixteen and we know that mr selig came to the united states in may of tw sixteen we don't know when he received that check i think the speculation and i believe the the reasonable inference is he likely got it at some point while he was over in kenya before he came to the united states but the opposing counsel says on page twenty three of their brief there was no evidence about who file the sent to shore tax return there was no evidence about how where would you know when you know exactly how he came into possession of that check the that's not the day he came into possession of the check and we know that's not the day that the fraud the tax return was filed we also know from the indictment that the act plays in the dallas division of the north of this texas we the only one of those three acts that we know took place in dallas was the selling of the fraudulent i r s check on office not so i think the indictment makes very clear what the government's case was and i think if you look at the trial record it is very clear that as to count one the government is laser focused on the selling of the check is the bait as we heard from the undercover i r s agent he was the person testified the longest while there were complete audio and video clips of the actual transaction of the forty eight thousand dollars changing hands between mr cell and the undercover i r s agent with leah perot right air in the passenger seat or the back seat and on the closing argument point i think any sort of reference to he may have come into possession of this in africa was really to paint a picture of the overall context of how this overall scheme i mean there was no dispute that the scheme him a native from africa and involved multiple fraudulent checks refunds being sent on behalf of the deceased americans to people in africa whether that was through a refund check being mailed to africa or fraudulent refunds being deposited in libya rose bank accounts before they were shut down here in the united states is showing an overall pattern and i think any reference in closing arguments to do this pattern the governor makes it clear that they're the seventy six thousand dollars check we heard from the undercover agent we heard about the transfer that that's health one and then on the next page the government says that transactions pacifically is all we are talking about when we're talking about count one so i believe the government even though it you know reference that he probably came into possession of this check at some point when he was africa made clear exactly this is what count one is focused on any reference to him coming into possession of the check in africa really was to show an overall pattern and show a relationship between count one and count the wary but i don't believe the trial record bears out that it was a separate theory on which the government proceeded to trial teacher that so on the sufficiency argument i think it's helpful to kind of give a brief overview of the record and say exactly what we do know about the ip address and about the diedrich for fraudulent the return that was bank account that was in i believe grand prairie texas so they will fall within a few days of each other from the same ip address that for one ip address and the refunds were sent to lady abro and then about nine thousand dollars out of one of those refunds was wired to mr silas brother edwin who you know likely a brother was involved in count one as well what do we know about the ip address well we know that mr silas logged into the for one ip address more than nine hundred times and use that ip address and log into this pay pal account more than nine hundred times over the span of a few years so he's using this ip address very very granular nine hundred augie end of the span of a few years  address it's in the name of the corporate and correct your honor and a few points on that i do believe and this is contrary to opposing counsel arguments that there is strong reference earlier that the court obviously requested government exhibit thirty eight dollars what that exhibit shows are logged into mr silas pay pal account with then a couple  days when these fraudulent tax returns were filed i know miss baron suggested that you would need something on the actual day i don't believe that's the standard and i think when you have multiple log ins to this for one ip address into mr silas pay pal account within a couple days of when the you know deeper and do many tax returns were filed in march th well i think that's strong circumstantial evidence to link him and the other point i'll make again about the public nature of this network and we don't believe that it was we believe like any other network it was password protected is there was evidence at trial from the i r s computer specialist in this law those who said this is associated with a specific business most businesses password protect their ip addresses so you don't have bottlenecks and people logging on all the time and slowing things down if it was public what we would expect to see is  and ten where you go to this place you can log in and instead of having fifty people on one press you have five people on this address by people on this address to kind of space out the band within the whole of if you look at mr that ip address you know seven hundred and eighty some odd for one in one hundred and fifty for the other ip addresses that are shown a couple audience here half a dozen logons there you know maybe twenty here if this were a public network you would expect there to be a slate of different ip addresses and the evidence at trial was that if that was the case then you were randomly get assigned to one of these ip addresses when you went to the business or the internet cafe or whatever it was were other players i do not believe there is any evidence in the trial record showing that anyone other than mr silas could log in to this ip address there was a you know an argument from defense counsel that anyone could do it but i don't believe there's any evidence in the registry after he was arrested someone misunderstand that it's so there are a couple of log ends into this i'm into his pay pal account that's into the pay pal account not the ip address there are no log ends into his pay pal account from before one ip address after he was arrested there were a couple logons into his pay pal account from different ip addresses after he was arrested and there's there's no evidence about why that is whether he gave someone his password and permission to log into his pay pal account but none of the log ins to his pay pal account after he was arrested were from before one i so you're saying and there is no evidence that anyone else has even including his brother that's a question i  m really buying this somebody random in the public use to argument and when it clearly is involved in this overall conspiracy as well and very well could have been the one that did this in which case just  doesn't make him liable or criminally liable so how do we know as we did not have access to the psyche to me that's the bottom line question that bothers me well there's no no evidence in the record i believe that shows that  address for enterprise i c t the business that the ip address was registered to was the same address that geoffrey sila listed as his home address on one of his pay pal accounts bets government exhibit forty again that's the pay pal records so he's listing this is his home address in addition to all the other walk ins and everything else that we know about the ip address and i think when you put that will you know the evidence connecting his involvement with count one you kind of put the pay pal account information the ip address information the number of log and the p o box that links him directly as his home address to this business and you know the similarities between count one count get you over the sufficiency help especially given you know these are generous factual findings the deference that's what i don't believe that on this record given all that evidence especially when it's combined that it's possible to say that no because the transaction was definitely between lydia and when in two thousand and twelve we know that even if we may not have known that before completely but we know that as comments and things that edward was involved and then we know that the business itself is and when's business in so you're saying he didn't have access to his own ip address for his own business  that's not very logical to me very well may have access judge a lot of what i was saying is i don't believe there's anything in the record that confirms specifically that he had access to the connection between what do you have bro and edw closing i don't believe that there was any hard evidence that came out at trial to say this is that was business services you know red shirt that was that was i mean i'm going to go with what your people are arguing i mean that's one as well and determined afterwards even all that evidence that that he was guilty so i think i think it comes down to a factual question that given all the evidence that is there linking jeffrey to this i  here you know we have the pay pal account records the p o box the ip address was password protected likely and everything else and i think that separates it from you know a case where we're talking only about modus operandi i think we have more in addition to that respectfully and if i if i may briefly with my last minute i'll turn to the intended last calculation just to address a couple things that were that were said st is about harmon from pay pal are the bank accounts that are shown in the pay pal records mr silos bank accounts in order to link a bank account in a pow you have to prove that you were the pay pal account owner as well as the bank account you can't show as a link bank account something that someone else is banking and i think government exhibit i believe forty makes this clear because as judge l rod said it's clear that there is money flowing into that account accounts that are listed on government exhibit thirty six dollars of government exhibit fifty those are the bank accounts that were quote unquote linked to mr sellars pay pal account the testimony at trial was in order to link a bank account for the purposes of those records the pay pal account owner has to be the owner of the bank account and there there's a discussion about ways to pay pal can ensure that you're the owner of the pay pal account and the owner of the bank account because as for obvious reasons you don't want someone who does not own the bank account to be able to link those accounts and draw money out of them or anything like that that doesn't foreclose or preclude in any way shape or form that i have a bank pay pal corporate representative who testified at trial talked about the way the pay pal confirms identity between the account holder for the pay pal account the bank account so forest reserve bank account would not you know show up in the pa r records for that reason ok thank you we have your argument thank you thank you do you have it and then just i think that you know we pretty much exhausted this but on the issue of this i have a lot of trouble and i did get a copy of that flash drive it was very difficult and i had to sit out to past they told me they would base stands in that cell spreadsheets so that's that's where i had to leave it but you know there's there are a little more complex than i think the workers in this year but i'm certainly easiest way to check that out