girls in the context of what has been presented as evidence in the actual evidence and testimony that was given appears to more have been as an effort if you will to grease the drug deal as opposed to the other way around that was there that was for the jury to decide as you reputation there was no evidence introduced at trial that he had any you prior drug dealing that he had ever been involved in drug dealing before that's an absence of evidence that in itself doesn't seem to be mr any any affirmative  stopped him and said no wait for us i think that some evidence that he was reluctant that he was going to leave that scene and not necessarily do the transaction even after the second deal that happened in the sears parking lot he does a transaction and they're trying to talk him into doing more drugs and more transaction he starts to drive the car away and then you know again say no no stop come you know we want to keep talking and i think that perhaps when these here at all if the if the investigators had recorded the very first phone call had recorded the first forty five minutes or an hour meeting had reported decision and the fact that he was relying on interest not requiring coercion when that is not the case i think those things all go to the fact that he was either misinterpreting the law and then there was no evidence that he was weighing the credibility he was saying this is more likely than that that there's still no showing that he was reluctant to bring drugs into the picture when i asked if you know for sure you want my girls great and not only that but that you like some other great stuff to go with that are just i just don't see any evidence of a good morning the trial court judge trying to hurt this case specifically stated on the record that the only thing that fence counsel had offered was speculation in theory there was no real evidence whatsoever in fact the only evidence that pertain to the fact that is leaving and what makes it so disingenuous then is going out to get the drugs that's what he's doing and in fact at that point brooks instant attendant where should i do what should i do you shall stay here or should i go with you that he had to negotiate their negotiating the deal and he began begins to talk about the fact that he doesn't you know the price of a key and therefore again going to the issue of his character again if you look at the facts he knows the price of what not whether they were playing on the women i think that the reluctance is the most important factor but i think to get to the some evidence threshold if you have strong evidence of any of those five factors for predisposition you have enough for the instruction i don't think you need some evidence on all five of them to get fact that he had no priors that there was no drugs in his apartment that he had no money on him as far as the second issue the government did suggest all of the deals as far as the profit motive he repeatedly says i'm not making any money off of this i'm not making any money i thought he take my women which i thought you were going to do i need more money on the drugs because i'm not making the money on the drugs i teamed you just so you know when i think that is all evidence in the record you can make that reasonable inference the judge has the authority to take the evidence in the record make a reasonable