event the other one is kind of at the end of the appeal or guarding the judge's rejection of our various on the guidelines at the end of sentencing but the st two issues are basically intertwined was the witness who connected my defendant my client rather the defendant to all of the accusations and allegations of the drug trafficking that's going on in bismarck north dakota relevant to this case she is the one who knew my defended st chief allegedly the d who brought my defendant to north dakota she is allegedly d the one d that put my client in contact and testified all about those contacts with different people accordingly she was a fairly serious significance and critical witness  believe that miss ball's testimony was profoundly unique to everyone else however that's why i go back to this idea that i think she did a lot more than connect the dots a lot of the other witnesses had i call it dribs and drabs of mr chappelle they're basically dealing with a lot of drugs before during and after mr chappelle's arrival miss ball certainly was far more significant than serp in testifying about mr chappelle being involved narcotics as why he became involved and with whom he became involved as opposed to the other witnesses who may have just seen him merely present that a lot of situations so because of that her testimony becomes a little bit more significant in fact i believe becomes a lot more significant than that is also a lot more significant the judge who question who oh please correct me if i'm wrong but it is i see the record of the material that has been attributed d to paul on page twenty six of your brief for the proposition that she was actually came from  misspell with regard to her brevity in which i actually asked her ok now you said you've been using that for a long time over ten years is that your festival yes sir my next question already are you still using had information that allegedly that floated into my client in the jail four hundred and fifty miles away that heard that she had been involved d in an overdose and that was i don't know that i would well i could except that i did ask her she hadn't used since june of two thousand and sixteen i suppose that would naturally include everything up to and including the time she was testifying and she said she fact when this paul says he had used since two thousand and sixteen the government now knows she's committed perjury in the trial because she said d that she will fail the drug test and she high so the government knew when this battle took the stand that she was intoxicated government did not tell the judge that didn't tell the defense that and allowed her customers go forward and in fact allowed her testimony go forward such to the point that she lied to the court and it would point in time that the government stopped the proceedings bench or cross examine to redirect rather miss ball to clarify what miss paul had said just about twenty minutes previous to taking the stand and so what we have is an individual under the new evidence that she's testifying about and in that testimony d she's saying i have a touch less than two thousand and sixteen now it doesn't really come out much it must be read the transcript but part of the things that we do when we cross examine or when i do what i cross examine this fall was to inquire about the agreement that she had with the government as to allowing her to testify in fact she was never charged in this case now when she comes up and says i have  and significantly cuts for the credibility about with regard to argue to a certain degree the cuts for the credibility of the government's case when the government has information that they know or that they know that they're placing somebody who is a toxic literally before the court we asked the court after we got that information washed back up before we got that information or after i got the information i passed it on to the government and i told the government that this  fall disappeared and we didn't have we have her phone records we had her phone calls to the jail in which she basically said in the phone in fact and said in the fall that the government has told her and that she had lied about it on the problems i would say but if it had her signature on the bottom from my understanding nobody's heard from this ball since that information was a put in front of the court and we asked the court to review it for a new trial as i indicated for the new evidence and for the brady violation the court's order make several comments about and somewhat in keeping with the court's comments here today first of all i'm not necessarily comfortable with jail rumors i was comfortable enough to want to drug tests i was comfortable on enough to know what's going on with miss prall but when the prosecutor put her on the stand i trust the prosecutor was enough or even satisfactorily enough to put out there i had it not confirmed by anybody the only person i have confirmed going to my client my client was not you know and he just said he heard from people in the jail  fly at that point when the government has put her forward that's kind of almost the core crux of the whole brady issue that i bring the for you because had i had other evidence or cross examination could have gone price differently but the only evidence i have is a yelling thank you good afternoon ma'am please the cards and mr sandberg my name is macon huey and i represent the united states in this matter at the outset we need to do with two factual allegations that have been made in the defendant's brief and again an oral argument today related to the new trial and brady arguments these two factual allegations are not premised on anything in the record and are unsupported by the record the st was made on page fourteen of the defendant's brief and again in our argument today where the defendant alleges the united states knew bob was intoxicated when she testified and withheld that information there is no support in the record and the of the defendant's agenda but those record cites go to the district court's order where the district court rejected this proposition that any claim of intoxication was unsubstantiated by the record light on the stand it's laid out on page eighteen of the brief and again referenced on page twenty six of the brief this exchange between parties is not just leslie paul regarding meth use since two thousand and sixteen this any recent drug or alcohol use during direct or cross examination and in fact it came out to during that examination that miss ball had been using meth throughout the time of the events in question and that she had an alcohol problem she talked about how in two thousand and seventeen she went to treatment for alcoholism and she also exam also admitted of cross examination that she had done meth since that time and she started drinking again in two thousand and eighteen case on appeal the allegations the united states knew that ball was actually intoxicated there's no support in the record for that claim and that was asked on cross examination in the united states did not correct the record and ha examination of the that entire argument is premised on the testimony of a different individual not on this boss testimony then to the new trial issue the united states does not concede any element of the new trial inquiries newly discovered evidence of diligence but i'm going to turn to the that she went to treatment that she admitted using meth again that she had started drinking again if she had been using during the time period of the trial that simply adds on to the characterizations that were already established of her act which is very similar to th beaks case where the witness was portrayed as a drug user and a former dealer and he was impeached such that the additional information that he was also selling drugs during the time of this testimony was not sufficient to show there was an acquittal was likely and in this case it is particularly that the defense or trial didn't deem this material enough now the defense counsel has said that his knowledge is really just jailhouse rumors but the defense at trial told the district court i know from my information that she is still using pretty significant narcotics and she overdosed a few days ago and he says he's in indicated this knowledge to convince the courts to order a drug test she testified about how the defendant stayed at various hotels multiple witnesses hollingshead now stand by her all testified to the same thing backed up by documentary evidence which we've included in our appendix on appeal let's have all said she picked up david to she talked about an event just by for shop were justified for took a lot of methamphetamine out of the car was that she was in the office and didn't really see what they're doing but she understood what was going on but just in five or did tell the jury exactly what was going hollings had the exact same thing that he had heard both from the defendant and provide for what had happened regarding removing barge quantities of meth out of the defendant's mercedes and jen and now david nelson said the same thing that's about talked her at the end of her testimony looking for any any indication of what he had been alerted to and based on a careful review her answers with thoughtful complete there's no indication she was on andrew the influence of drugs or alcohol is simply no suppression st the new trial or the new evidence is brought forward is an unsubstantiated allegation that leslie ball was under the influence her demeanor as i just that did not reflect that there's nothing in the record to rebut that she that she was and there's no affidavits to that effect defense counsel prepared one for her and when she got it and read it you can hear on the jail call her tone changed and she became very somber to june th are excuse me of june  off when she was talking about it and she did not sign it she ran away from it and disappeared and there is of course no obligation to turn over information that the defense is r t has and is in his possession this is the unusual case with the defense actually alerted the united states to leslie ball's recent drug and alcohol abuse as the district court found the defense was aware of this issue brought it to the court attention and the record shows just as the materiality inquiry for the brady purposes in this case is suffice to say the issues on appeal were based on factual allegations that are not take my attention directly to the brady issue in that particular issue one wonders why the government share that information and it's our argument that they should  share that information and did not and they didn't share that information because it may have been negative toward their witness d a negative for their case that in and of itself shows what i would consider bad faith under the brady rule and that forgiveness for the what more could be in our allegation that brady violations so with that here are ask you to consider a brief court thank you well before you close could you address the problem in your briefs on page eighteen a dialogue that you say is between sandburg involved in the record shows it's between sandburg and fine for that appears to be without a whole lot more that appears to be a error in the production of the ok well thank you both for your arguments the case is submitted and the court will file an opinion in due course