all right we want to welcome you here normally we would be thursday but this is a holiday week so it lasted from tuesday to friday we have three cases on the docket this morning notwithstanding that we appreciate your taking only the time that's a lot of to you when the yellow light comes on you have two minutes someone in the red light comes on we ask you to conclude your argument unless you're answering a question of the court we have read the briefs and record excerpts we have not normally gotten into the entire record when we hear the case and so we've pretty shaky record citations the first case of the morning is number seventeen for the three seven five united states female and a k twelve  the rug proceeds as if so facts of an effect on interstate commerce secondly i would point out that the government relies on a subsection of financial transactions statute for which they had put on any evidence and and for which the jury was not instructed the second thing i'd like to talk about as a do the five cast conviction for use of a minor there's only seven verbs listed and i'd argue that only one of those could simple could possibly fit here and why it doesn't  commerce it's not enough to simply say well he he bought a car and therefore we drug proceeds and therefore that's enough page twenty three of the government brief go business at the dealership also involved financing from the laredo federal credit union selling notes to banks attaining insurance getting cars at auctions in forty eight states and vehicle registering in title and they point side to page eleven eight seven of the record and it is absolutely true that there is a subsection in the financial transaction definition that speaks to that but that's not what the government relied on see for this is the woman government relied on a transaction which in any way affects interstate commerce involving the transfer of title in this case it was to a vehicle and that's what all the evidence was about and that's what they argue the closing argument subsection b says this transaction involving the use of a financial institution which is engaged in or the activities of which affect interstate for commerce now the financial institution definition does include a used car commercial  the jury is if they didn't argue it in the jury's not instructed on the government cannot now rely upon it my authorities for they are five eighty eight of second nine hundred eighty six nine ninety three footnote twelve and one thirty seven if third to four cited in your brief to the five counts of conviction for use of a minor there are seven verbs used in the section eight sixty one a one which is the states you issue employ hire use persuade the dawn trusted empowered child one of the there is a case that somehow our other chon became involved there's no denying that so what verb would you use based on but for a don chon would never have arguably never been involved in this i can i mean i think that's fair to say that every one of these counts is a possession with intent to distribute can out with an additional element of use of a minor fact i argued in my initial brief which was stricken because it was overlay that all the possession with intent to distribute council are double jeopardy barred if the use of a minor cannot stand because the lesser included point i'm trying to make here is that possession with intent to distribute is a continuing offense that begins with possession it ends with the point time that controlled substance research it reaches its destination there are four subservience now when i look those words up in the dick new webster's dictionary of english language i find serve all that and i may be mispronouncing that or obsequious which falling that there is no interaction between chosen and the done that would fit subservience that's that's that's that's the argument that i would make he's i'm not arguing for his that he was a i mean you could say entice or persuaded to do in so far as he's given him a bunch of money he gets to keep a bunch of money when he well he thought they were well my remit is that they were equal partners they will if they were equal partners you think that's correct and every time the police raided it he'd put in more security quitman it but i've done it yeah i agree yeah but if chan was a partner there's no indication that china had anything to do with any of that well he may not have had anything to do with that particularly but he had he had everything to do in fact at this point to one of it here on june the fifth and this is counts ten and twelve was the one that contacted the supplier in negotiating the price i'm not saying that every facet first of all i would agree with the government argument to the to this extent and that is that a done was in was over this this was basically his his baby i'll concede that but that doesn't mean that that everybody in the organization if china had not been hit if he'd been twenty years old and he had not been to die and i don't think we even be a week at this i don't think this would be on the radar screen as to whether of course june third there's a conversation this takes place this is a government exhibit seventeen b one nine hundred thirteen through one nine hundred fifty in the record this is were a conversation we're just we're chon is giving the orders he's telling dad what to do and i think that's significant it's not the one with the money in the pocket that's right that's it that's right and then on july tenth this is the only other alternative date that could possibly be used to satisfy screed in his crotch the only interaction that day that i can recall is char on and done having a phone conversation were chon tells his dad what happens there's not anything else that went on that day that i could say constitutes there's nothing in any of those dates that that shows me a relationship during those time periods that is funny or obsequious or anything like that the two cases there are a couple cases  because they could go to jail and get out easier the fifth circuit case one ninety seven f third seven thirty six i did cite this in my brief i think this is where this guy took his three year old child and threw him at law enforcement and then fled lolo as a as a minor in my national grief i argued that was also i also argued that i think i had seven or six or seven m or r jeopardy bar but after my twenty two thousand word belief was order not to be filed i had to pare down my issues from fourteen to eight so in this brief you're right i did not argue that additional one has to load ok less or any more questions i'll yield back the rest of my time now s it's long for the united states subject of discourse questions i'd like to pick up where my colleague ended and that's with the five convictions at issue in this appeal for use of a minor i think that the record here the governor would submit is replete with evidence that the defendant affirmatively engaged his son in his activities and i'd start with the defendant's own words at sentencing the defendant himself said my two sons are the ones that helped me and there was a record evidence in the transcripts that the defendant said to the source that this was a situation where this was his store these were his workers his sons helped him and he didn't want to risk at one point he said something about it he didn't want to have to hire more workers for his shop because they would steal his material how much of that was certainly a record that was in the trial record of what you said what he admitted was  quote that when he said my two sons are the ones that help me is the specific quote from sentencing i recognize that goes to more of the the enhancement involving use of a minor but the statements to the source where he talked about this being his shop his workers that's all in the record and beyond that your honor i would say that the record as a whole demonstrates that time and again the defendant was the one closing the deals closing the sales and then he would issue the directives that shawn with an exit and thr that you can see that quite vividly where for instance just to take the june fifth transaction as an example the defendant reaches a deal with the source the source says he is going to purchase a quarter kilo of cocaine from the defendant and the defendant says i'll tell my son to make the call now and then of course we do have the record evidence of chon reaching out to keiko the supplier to get that cocaine to obtain the court accused of cocaine to cook it package it to deliberate then to the defendant and the source you also have the defendant telling the source that she wants him to meet at his home with just him and his son to make sure that he feels that use and that's another example of the defendant affirmative y using his son but beyond that as your honor noted the terms of the statute here are quite to patients it's not just use it's also employ higher use persuade induced entice coworkers the government not that all of these terms are reflected here and i began of course with my colleagues concession here is that but for the defendant john would not have been involved here is there any practical difference in challenging as well as the money laundering when he was sentenced to life on the three counts of conspiracy to possess drugs do you know is there and is there any practical difference for the hundreds of governments overall point here is that this was there is no practical difference all of the funds arguments alternately are challenging not simply a reasonable jury verdict but a situation where the defendant was literally off the charts in terms of his offense level well i understand that but i mean he's got the three count book that carry a life sentence and that's not appealed right there is two pounds on which he received life sentences that were run concurrently one of them has been appealed ok which one means that the counts thirty one which was a driver involved the largest seizure of the marijuana it was a possession right but he still convicted of two counts of with the concurrent life sentences roy yes your honor and as i understand a conspiracy to money launderers twenty years on these use of minors for forty years siege right yes you hiring using persuading the government normally break down the transaction by transaction or with the government just going after this fellow for you and i can't speak generally but i don't think it's unusual here because the these were of course well like i can see if there was more than one minor you know you there's what john and lolo but  five different instances i think it is with charm and does not the government normally do that i mean we get sex trafficking cases all the time that involve underage girls and every time they went to visit to be prostituted as charged his use of the minors so i just wondered bester nice just as it was appropriate for the government to be charging each of these judgments actions the fact that he used a minor in on each of that turning to unless the court has further questions about the use of the minor turning to the interstate effects issue that my colleague also raised this was a situation where the defendant utilized every classic money laundering technique in the book also knowingly professed that danny present the his dad a car dealer what's your go to person if what you want to do is essentially money laundering that there's ample evidence supporting that count on the interstate effects probably this court's decisions and gallo and westbrook make clear that where you have as here this nexus between the money line and the laundered funds and drug trafficking that that satisfies the minimal interstate effects necessary and beyond that we do have record evidence the government did put on evidence for instance danny presents testimony that made clear that for instance his car dealership  participated in car auctions in miami and texas danny perot's testified and that is in the record that its record evidence about the commercial nature of his car dealership about their interactions with the bank and together with the fact that there was evidence that these cars were also used in the drug transactions for instance i just had to be example of chon driving to deliver the two zero of cocaine to tony in his yellow corvette which was the corvette that there was evidence of being a laundered car given that evidence there was more than sufficient evidence she was satisfied not only the interested effects pronk but the elements of th