in this decisions on tanks motion to suppress and his route twenty nine and ruth thirty three motions and to whether the government's use of racial stereotype a trial violated zangs to process right your honor i believe the parties wouldn't be here arguing whether john understood the miranda waiver and consent to search forms of the government agency asked whether he understood the text in these forms but no he did a lot more than that it was much more deliberate understood it took him line by line and at each turn when given the opportunity misusing inform the agents that he understood think the issue is not the credibility of the government witnesses the issue is whether credible that the witnesses and government witnesses themselves subjectively believe that he understood the one my experts provided was the information as to why he did not have the capacity to understand and attacks in the forms district court judge accorded those expert opinions not no weight but significantly less weight because they were not able to show that their method of determining his intellectual disability and determining the effect of that disability on his english language his ability to understand or comprehend english was a reliable method in fact they'd never been qualified as experts before my one why why wasn't the district court judge in title due to that issue there is that he  attacks the questions that the district court judge raised or not based on any scientific basis as to why the experts methods themselves were not is the basis for the district court judge says that the opinions being offered by the experts themselves are not scientific right that she's experts are relying on records from that when he was in school and also this test that's supposed to measure proficiency in the workplace and nothing that's really focused on whether he understood this particular form in this particular context right that seems like a reasonable argument why is that not linguistic capacity and this is something that you have to look at why whether or not the experts basis for looking at those records are reasonable and the district court judges questioning is not based on the need i think is based on the presumption and that takis and speaks english right and he's been in that he went to high school here has been one choice who was special that student just his function also it's possible that he understood this form and you're arguing that maybe he didn't understand the form but the experts are only looking at records from back when he's in high school but the district court i think was pretty persuaded by the fact that the experts didn't say anything specifically connecting his mental deficiencies to the understanding of this form in this particular context you know if you look at  edge did seem to cast doubt on his ability to understand even those forms at issue here but you know why are you asking us to re evaluate the district court judges determination  the district court judge here had a hearing heard from as just gradually pointed out the border patrol agents who disputed more or less what you're saying which is they said we asked him if he couldn't if he felt comfortable speaking english and this is in the joint appendix and he said yes and the district which is also evaluated and heard from the experts which is not always the case and sad just because you can converse in english doesn't mean you have that capacity to read and listen compelled to find that he was not competent because if the fact that you have a colorable argument isn't good enough you have to convince us that as a matter of law to judge was obliged to find him not aware of the high probability that the two passengers who transported had crossed the border from canada and had done so illegally we go through it the evidence in our brief but very quickly to pick up s and likely knew where he was going and where on the map the bear's dam was his professional driver the drop off arrangement show the passengers had been transported to the bear's den from somewhere else mr zheng waited for about two hours for the passengers to arrive the person coordinating the transfer confirmed by phone that mr zang was at the pick up spot but then companions waited for another hour which shows the passengers are likely travelling from a distant location combining all those things i think it was the jury was well within its into was entitle to find beyond a reasonable doubt that mr zang knew or should have been aware that the passengers were coming in from canada in addition the facts show that they had entered illegally the whole arrangement itself was highly unusual to cali new york city livery driver to drive all night to within a mile of the border wait two hours coordinated transfer between cars then drive immediately all the way back that is unusual enough to suggest that the purpose here was to minimize the amount of time that the passenger spent in this area and the transfer was arranged in the calls are made so that zang was ready and waiting to go and the purpose again was to testified that the passengers appeared anxious mr zheng told the friends not to interact with the passengers again which indicates he did not want the details of their trip to be verbalized and perhaps wanted to maintain the deniability of pick up with other people he asked these two friends to come along with him they did to them i think it you know they didn't have the full context but i think even they knew that there was something odd because they asked they asked mr zeigler not talking  so again these kind of if they perhaps may have not been fully clued in on to where they're coming from i think mr zheng had the full picture in addition when he was stopped by the police officers or the agents he said that he was working for the good luck car service as a stablished a trial that was actually not true he had arranged this himself had gotten paid more money he wouldn't have to pay a commission prosecutorial misconduct claim the problem prosecuted not argue that zang knew that his passengers were chinese citizens they soley on their parent appearance and language rather you argue that it was an issue of credibility that that he could tell the passengers were asian or chinese it was more and more indication he had put that in issues who to speak in dispute on cross examination is that correct i'm sorry mr mr saying was there's a more broadly are broadly and there's a you know there's certainly my opposing counsel is correct that there is ambiguity in these terms but when you combine it and look at it in context i think it was it was the denial of even the knowledge that they were asian in appearance or especially when everyone else in the car was able to testify accurately that that the two people who got in were chinese and again i think that there was no objection to th trial so again he's under the plane air standard he has to show this is a flagrant abuse interview agree that we need to police this very carefully very carefully your honor and i completely agree with that i don't think that this comes anywhere near a flagrant abuse and we cite some cases in our in our brief of arguments that did cross the line of this was nowhere near this there's this was one comment out of a very solid circumstantial case  m when mr the agent testified at the suppression hearing that he told saying that if you understood the waiver he should sign it and mr zheng then did and he read me read the last paragraph which says in citing a number of problems with the experts analysis as the court pointed out they relied on education records from fifteen years prior zang passed most of those classes and in grades nine in ten the poor performance  agents as they were as havens attested by two didn't get any information about what he had said during the interview and again they if they haven't was that information available i think they could have your honor and again they testified after the agent had testified as well so they could have again addressed it then but they they made no effort to even get it from saying what had happened and in the interview and that this report as news that i mean that was part of status of the passengers unless a look at the immigration database so on the one hand governing witnesses themselves says even they stopped the vehicle they looked over the the paperwork the passports of the passengers they cannot determine whether they're illegal aliens or not and yet the government argue that juncture that gnome because  to under the arrangements with the good luck company and so he knew of that location based on that st trip the nd trip he got that call referred to by his you know mr the thing for a jury to convict him of that this is this is the issue right so he actually paid the car companies certain fees to get those jobs whether he so called quote unquote trip weekly or monthly a regular but this trip wasn't arranged through the good luck cursors this was not this was referred to by his friends but you're saying that there's a way to think of this trip as somehow being on the job for the consistent with the verdict which means they rejected that story once you have that rejection what's your argument if they reject that that's whether that constitutes the man's right whether it contributes to it that that they found that he lied about and that was consciousness of guilt i mean it is you'll agree it's an unusual trip to go from