trust act to convict of in this case a bid rigging up purely local municipal activity of drivers who would transport they had in other purchases now we have strongly argued and developed in our brief in our reply brief the fact that we believe this is not sufficient because the the  that the fact that these people were having the contracts and getting the monies paid what impact that that market the fact is that the only evidence was that they had purchased them way before years before your own or outside of the scope of the allegations of that of the conspiracy and particularly they never did say whether they were purchased with monies game by any means i mean if i could say i bring forth a comparison i mean i bought a car i buy a car in puerto rico and i bought it ten years ago it's paid for its use for i buy gasoline and i'm accused of a of federal offense and somebody can say well she's using a car that was brought in interstate commerce because there's no money fact because those are it is for example i mean that's a robbery and that's a weapon but this is a bus that was purchased way before and this individual has been providing buster vicis bus transportation services prior to the time of the allegations in  the in this particular indictment so therefore isn't it relevant that the buses were purchased way before i'm not during the time both you purchase a gun a year or two before a robbery in interstate commerce and then use the gun for the robbery is correct your honor price prices have to be established when you go for bid rigging but its market value of a location that makes the difference defined mean that has to be made in this case was market allocation  i address that in a reply brief i understand that that translates to survive translation of the letter she did not actually say that they say we are not awarding any of the contracts because again contractual letters belie the fact that there was time in between there's no allegation that was any collusion these people had been providing services mr guy has a history of being having provided services that's all he did drive buses so therefore it buses this is relevant to the what my opponent raised and the question of the of the buses being purchased in the past the effects test is laid out by the supreme court and at some health decision is future looking not pas looking the issue is what it is would there have been a not insubstantial effect had the conspiracy succeeded so i don't think it's relevant that the buses were purchased in the past or outside the period of the indictment the  relevant fact is that the buses were used were traveled in interstate commerce and were used to perform the services that were the subject of the bid rigging and an auction manipulation that was the point that i wanted to make on the buses if i may turn to the nexus argument or the connection between the negotiation process and the auction process that it is not correct to say that the renegotiation was some separate process disconnected from the auction there was a bundled evidence in the record from which the jury could conclude that they were part and parcel of the same process judge thompson you put your finger right on on one of those facts which is that the auction process determine docket to fifteen at age twenty so the defendants could not have received contracts from the negotiations alone they could only receive contracts as a result of an auction as an auction process and the defendants knew later call for renegotiation and so they should take account of that fact and build it into their bid prices implicitly saying no bit higher because the costs may then surely try to bargain you down so the defendants knew that negotiation might be a part of the auction of the auction process in addition i'd like to point out that as a matter of law under section one of the sherman act just as in many other types of conspiracies the agreement is the crime it doesn't matter whether the district of columbia federal agencies they were v a and f h a loan guarantees were sufficient because they supported the underlying real estate transactions here we have federal money supporting the actual being returned it you know not an underlying transaction auction process because under the sherman act the agreement is the crime the agreement was made at the low bar community center meeting and so the offense took place at that at that time it really doesn't legally matter what happened after that point the defendants had violated there's any merit to this notion that the renegotiate process was some separate process if you look at the award letters that the defendants actually received from congress for example supplemental appendix page four hundred and nine that's the defendant separate negotiation process unrelated to the auction and actually say you're getting this as a result of the auction so unless there are further questions from the court i think will rest on our brief and  transactions needed a longer n t s and there were federal funds here there is an allotment or money passing from the federal department of education would be that any federal dollars if it has an original in or in or i'm sorry or is nation in any federal agency that somehow gets to another dependency of a local government will make every activity federal your honor and this is what removed this is a mountain town there's nothing touching this town except the toxic federal dollar and maybe the gasoline and that old bus that's what died but that's what the government realized to just you sherman jurisdiction to attack transaction thank you thank you