i'd like to reserve one minute for ten and fourteen year old degrees in a fast changing industry because then it wasn't employed in the computer industry on my case he was a produce supervising manager for a produce company he he does have those degrees he does finding is clearly erroneous there is no evidence in this record that the defendant picked or chose or selected in any way there is no evidence in this record at all the government didn't put on any evidence all we have is two computers w shareholder you don't have any evidence that those thousand files over here any time travel to that shared folder so they don't say anything about ted his knowledge of that shared folder the judge as evidence i do argue that it's a good idea that figure out how these programs are run you do not have direct evidence to decide this case you don't have to have the evidence of how the areas program runs you just have to have some evidence that he knew this program in this record from the evidence of files on his computer that files ever moved in and out of that shared folder you have no evidence of that and that's the judge's conclusion that he picked and he chose and he selected files to move in and out of that shared folder so that showed expertise with the bit torrent system and how i gathered from different computer scenes he reconfigured his computer if he worked in the computer industry but most importantly he admitted he could shut off and stop the flow of that shared folder that was in mission fast changing computer industry to change in the guidelines required knowing distribution before as are we presume that when you downloaded a peer to peer file sharing that program knew what it was doing we can't presume that anymore you need circumstantial evidence to support knowledge and you don't have that here  master's in computer networking when we look at his education and his background that this court has even said in that chair radio case which was the distribution of child pornography be on a reasonable doubt it wasn't first sentenc wasn't the only thing that the district court did and even taken a step aside even prior to the amendment when there was a circuit split more certain circuits require that knowledge out of it prior to the two thousand and sixteen amendment that the circuits including the second downloaded and that or at least there were different numbers of files that were in the shared folder and there was incomplete downloads the district court said the way that the forensic analysis of these two different computers shared th all of these files that were a variable are his computer and one computer was in excess of one thousand files and then only fifteen i want and i believe seventy four are another where in the sheriff are there there is some sort of picking and choosing to go around as to which specifically said in his why is it i'm driving why is it a small number of what he's using but he's sharing know what he's using he's downloading it to look for whatever period interest he has why is it that just the answer as opposed to these downloading specific images you want to infer that he downloaded those specifically to distribute to others i'm trying to figure out where that next link well comes in it appears or at least what the district court images that were in one folder which was that fall off from a file sharing folder on the down low thousand images which he then selectively took fifteen and put in a sharing  the evidence that we have is that when there was over two thousand and had been downloaded and i raced seventy right incomplete downloads and seventy four child abuse files being shared on areas that was his laptop and that is so i know there is for his desktop so there are the numbers peer programs operate in different ways however the defendant and keats attempted to make a similar argument that even though there is some surface circumstantial evidence we need to see whether the individual opted out or whether it's below the government content contestant that said he'd used it for five years ago and also said that he admitted he knew how peer to peer file sharing networks worked but the district court specifically found that there was no support in the records for those assertions so there's nothing in the that that five years and i couldn't find five years anywhere in the p s or anywhere in the plea agreement or anywhere at all and i just think there's a basic misconception going on here about where those files come from that are on the computer he could have gotten anywhere there's not many of these defendants have multiple peer to peer file sharing programs he could have gotten them from an old peer to peer file sharing program that he took them off it out of the shared folder and saved we don't know that why do we not know that because there's no evidence in th could have gotten from the u b s port that you plug into your computer from someone else there's no evidence in this record about where those files came from thank you thank you