prescription numbers were high there's a matter of fact this drove to new eight which concerned about it he called dr hinson and it st refused to give him the prescriptions and dr hansen said it was not a problem did but then he eventually does he calls he leaves a voicemail for instance saying that he needs a nonmember conic prescriptions to be on the three to one ratio yes and he's clearly he's clearly understands what's going on at some point here and and whether he sure that the patients coming to him were just buying class two drugs that he wanted them to be full stripe with a full array of prescriptions there was an issue with he had some years before in terms of his supplier where they can bill how many of schedule two medications you can get peacefully on a percentage basis yet by doing that he didn't go over the percentage so it was a way of adjusting his inventory information from that if into the nd issue is because of the trial french press the government kept trying to bring in all of these patients to testify and kept trying to argue with the court that they witnesses called that there was twenty witnesses that actually were referred to in terms of their conduct and everything in all of that information was allowed in a council is this year confrontation clause argument yes this gets into the confrontation clause argument yeah ok and and there's a there's an issue as to whether you preserved that question is that is that what we need to address well there is this probably something that needs to be addressed an objection to general hearsay objection just as much as it might go to a confrontation  don't here's a objection sometimes take the form it's hearsay we don't have an opportunity to cross examine yes i agree and i agree that the objections could have been a little bit more artful quantities and my question is is it your position or do you agree that the district court failed to rule on your objection to sentencing hearing as to dr correct that you didn't preserve your senate scene challenge because you need to object to that failure to rule under federal rule of criminal procedure thirty  two how do you respond to the government's position on that leave the government is right in that position your are and where so where does that leave us on issue number six  counsel at that point that i just said what's the use of it just kept coming again that he would make just a general  those issues once you focus primarily on those issues and touch on other issues as the core questions questions there are there are several wait claims because the defendant has not argued for plain error and inflammatory and were based on facts not admitted to the evidence so you even that doesn't preserve the issue we think that all those all of those claims are way for lack of jackson's weekly out you know where he's being under the issue raised and ruled on section exactly what what what objections were made and where they were ruled on and when he didn't raise any of the claims even in oral arguments the defendant says if he were highly prejudicial that's that's not a claim that he made as to any single char have the court could have taken another view the evidence then we get to the whole independent evidence issue the the amount of independent evidence required for the determination does not need to be substantial that's what this court setting out kor only the defendant made the statement that's his statement against interest that would come in the matter what conspiracy or not that makes it so so in my understanding you to say it may not be independent evidence but it comes in anyone is that would that be accurate but we're saying it's independent evidence and i didn't i didn't understand that are i'm glad i'm glad the court allowed me to make myself clear was saying it's independent evidence and it is independent because it did not depend on on anything from d who was a state that is as part of the conspiracy necessarily was independent evidence of the conspiracy that's what we're saying or the other the other independent evidence is we put on a lot of negatives with the pharmacy and so he had an influx of patients and therefore was there any truth to that well you know here's where we get into the clear air standard of review there may be another permissible view of the evidence the court may have may have just articulated another permissible view of the evidence which the defendant shares but the district courts view the evidence was was permissible it what we don't think it was equally permissible we think it was the better view of the evidence of that that's what we're going to clear air based on the evidence that the court received that finding it was not clearly erroneous because it was permissible it was plausible the court looked to put on evidence about the dosage is still quantities in a dangerous combinations and and from that evidence t opinion this ringback court said in a court that it doesn't have to be substantial we think we think that we have substantial evidence but even if it were insubstantial we would still comply so we think we're fine on the james hearings in the findings because they represent a permissible good testimony but it's not apparent from his brief he doesn't make the argument it is brief he does not show air so we could start with that on on on point three b and then we have to also argue that any testimony any evidence about the thirty one songs properly admitted in the st place so the possibility that humility testimony could require a reversal is extremely is extremely remote if not nonexistent the end use those doctrines and that any year admitting that was harmless so that's what we have to say about that issue fall and benefit from filling those prescriptions which he had every reason to know were going to get him and based on the high dosages the dangerous combinations and the number and the and the the pill quantities that worse that were prescribe so we think it's a case of overwhelming evidence on sufficiency and that this court should affirm the convictions i'm writing to take any other questions the court may have who doesn't have any questions i remember my time in question right thank you mr brown i think mr kammerer exhausted his allocated time so we'll conclude this argument and consider the case submitted counsel are excused and thank you for your arguments this morning