just good afternoon your honor to meet with the cult court counsel maria moran oh did not conspire to sell drugs with the guzman organization merriam reynolds relationship with t o was of a strict buyer seller relationship and nothing more that this record judge should have granted maria miller a nose motion for the record finding at the close of the government's case and certainly maria's motion based on rule twenty nine at the conclusion of the case this court recently said in the us vs girls sia the height of the hurdle to survive a challenge seeking a judgment of  directly on the strength of the government's evidence and around johnson and pull guard this court held that in a drug distribution conspiracy cases a conviction will be overturned when the possibility of a buyer seller relationship is the same as that of a conspiracy this case should not have reached the jury because the evidence presented by the government was of insufficient caliber and quantity to allow a rational finder of fact to find that a conspiracy existed that this is the quintessential case of the buyer seller even after the government had to flip flop that siri between their opening statement and closing arguments were an opening the government told the jury that maria worked for a drug trafficking organization and that this case is about a group of people who work together to distribute heroin and the defendant is a member of that organization that is a quote from the record but it and include in its closings your honor the government had adjusted its theory the government realized the during the trial and as torres was testifying that maria's relationship with the guzman's the a t o was nothing more than that of a buyer and a seller and so they said that they argued to the jury maria was not a argument a complete contradiction to its opening argument the government then stated the important question was did that did she conspire with the guzman organization to distribute per although that is an act actually the true question in the conspiracy case here there's a zero evidence to support that conviction more specifically the government did not present any evidence that an agreement to distribute the drugs existence and went beyond the agreement to complete the underlying drug deals none of the factors through circumstantial or the rect evidence that this court required to establish a conspiracy over a buy seller relationship exists in this case these factors are multiple large truck quantity purchases standing alone as this court has repeatedly said is not enough conspiracy which is exactly what we have in this case the government says that there were sales on credit the government did not present any evidence that the sales were on consignment but they argued that there were  sales and credit there were not in fact the delivery procedure to turn the government use repeatedly in its brief was established pacifically because of the lack of trust lack of cooperation and l mutual goals between maria marino and the detail of the delivery procedure was not a sale on credit by any means in chicago the money came first and then the drugs then they had to switch  detroit where the procedure was simply flip flopped the government's argument that the detroit procedure specifically on july sixteenth two thousand and thirteen was somehow different than the chicago one and was really a sale on credit makes no sense they first say or make the argument regarding that text message down here with my money but they fail to tell the port said it was followed just moments later with another text from the same phone number that says everything ok mom worried call me tell me something this second text message tells us that the person waiting with the money was maria's own child and that he's worried because they don't trust lost or and the d t o secondly your honour's is that the text itself is truly a red herring you know in a way the government did not introduce any evidence at trial direct or circumstantial that maria was not going to take the car with the drugs and return it with the money just as she has done before in fact the government introduced a phone call the day before were tourist testified that in preparation for the july sixteenth delivery he specifically spoke to maria moran oh to make sure that she was ready with the money and she told them that she is no reasonable jury could have concluded that this text message really meant that the  agree to front drops the maria and wait for the payment later next the government argues that because foster rented a room there's there had to be an agreement on sale for credit ladies  this is actually negated by the government's prior argument regarding the text message down here with my money that shows that maria was ready and able to pay according to their well established procedure in fact maria was arrested by foster's s u v as she was ready to leave to get the money and bring it back and finally the government argues that tore the tourist testified that he was this that there was a single occasion where maria delivered the money later but he did not remember any details about about it even if it happened and let's assume it did happen this was the odd exception as this court said in full gar similar situation this court held that there needs to be proof of repeated frontally not just singular  threats of each other's business and competitors or law enforcement the government argues that the single phone call maria made to two hours after she was stopped in indiana was an indication of agreement to warn each other not so this was a single isolated the cajun there was no dream and to warn each other maria in a mode of self preservation call tourist to tell him to drop the phone maria was war was only worried about herself the  challenge the challenge for is when you combine it all well right when you that's i think that's what the way judge caus analysis proceeded right in the sense that you have of these you have leased the one instance of the credit transaction because the jury was entitled to credit the torah's testimony the phone call happened and then you have the sharing of these vehicles in the way that they did so and when you add it all together is in fact what's what's of most concern  no and i'll start with the with the end ok there was no sharing of a vehicle i think the sharing of a vehicle is mis was misconstrued by the court and it is argued is argued by the government in a way that it did not organization or maria moreno to transfer drugs or money that vehicle was a completely unrelated vehicle to any of it was parked on the streets and had a drug tracked in it but that vehicle was never used but there's no evidence the dead vehicle was ever used bike either organization to conduct a drug deal in fact taurus testified that maria was also a customer of another individual i believe it was somebody as brother to going to be a call i don't believe so it might be registered to maria moreno's cousin but i'm not sure if it's in the record your honor i don't know and the fact that there was a singular call and a singular event of of possible credit sale just like in johnson dischord held that like the one time possible credit sale the singular warning is verdict with all inferences taken most favorably to the verdict the evidence supporting the defendant's conviction for mechanics conspiracy was ample first there was evidence of fronting in addition to mr tauruses testimony that that over the course of a year he recalled one specific incident affronting there was the july sixteenth two thousand and thirteen undercover essential delivery completion of a delivery when the inferences are taken in favor of the verdict that evidence is ample support running on that occasion multiple kilos of heroin were being deliver the defendant showed up with out any money on her person in her vehicle seen prior conversations that are part of the record in that discussed in our brief particularly transcript july fifteenth two thousand and thirteen at nine thirty three pm she's arranging saying the that the heroin needed to arrive by nine o'clock would be too difficult to deal with after nine o'clock what's going on we know what's going on because while she's in custody after the after arrested there's a text to her phone saying i'm here with the money with my money not her money my money now defendants now saying it was you know the sign making this call at trial interesting enough i went back and was reading through the record in light of his reply brief and in the record he suggests that it was actually a call from her mother that the mother was saying that she was there with the money does matter could have been her mother could have been a brother there showing up with money to purchase drugs was a reasonable inference that maria the defendant did not have that money this wasn't a matter of transfer and monies this was a matter of selling the drugs to get it as a reasonable i the light most favorable to the verdict in addition there is evidence that supports the again a reasonable inference that this happened earlier in june when the exact same thing foster was delivering the carolyn to her he stayed overnight in a hotel it's reasonable to think he wasn't staying overnight matt hotel with multiple kilos of heroin worth over two hundred thousand dollars that again the same thing was happening he was waiting for her to go sell these drugs that in fact this residence in fact the evidence reasonably supports the inference that they were of the verdict that now that the heroin was being brought to detroit that in fact fronting was becoming more of a routine and didn't happen in this the one thing mr torres is testimony is very clear that is nothing happened in this organization particularly not fronted without the permission happens when in johnson relied on by the defendant they were going to meet to do the sale and the defendant gives a morning don't come to the meet we're being looked at this is there is no sale going on at that moment what happens is she's leaving to return to detroit in this vehicle and the registration is in the record we don't know who this person is but it's some person who lives in the detroit area not far actually and this is in the record too far from the hotel that the de lay who goes down in but in any event she is stop them take the vehicle because she's not the registered owner and she in the course of calling tourist to set up the deal when she's going to go back and get the heroin from him in chicago before they start going to start and start going to try to she says you may get rid of your phone get rid of your phone this is like well they're getting fixed for her with so that so that their business is not disruptive and their collaboration is not disrupted you know again if she was just looking to preserve her cell she might just not have anything to do with them anymore in fact she says in the in the recorded conversation she has with doris basically i was followed from when i got that truck from here so she could be concerned there is heat on torres which there was actually and i'm not going to have anything to do with them anymore or she could be concerned that she she doesn't want to get in trouble with them so her warning them kind of goes to their trust that we're in this together you don't have to worry i'm betraying you i don't have to worry if you try to train me and again viewed in the light  supports that you had not just ranting here on some occasions with the course of a year and mourning within the course of the year and then in addition there was sharing of the vehicles mistaken i haven't gone back and read that part of the record but i certainly suggest in the brief that it was used and certainly the trap parker trap in the car lends itself to that interpretation but in addition mr foster struck at that deal in that car that vehicle to either take drugs directly and try and sell it with it or to take it to another place where she would then unload her style to then sell and get money from to return to to pay for the drug the use of the the only car that was used and there was evidence that two cars were really used one when she used to come when maria miranda used to come to chicago and she would come with the money and give it to to take it to the stash house tours was asked specifically why was a maria miranda met you at the stash house or something to that effect and he specifically said and during cross examination because she was a customer and we don't let customers go because there's no trust we're afraid of robbers in detroit the opposite procedure happened and foster came with the car and maria miranda did not meet foster where the money was because nobody wanted to have no they didn't have the trust to do so and so it was the opposite procedure in in detroit i think again the government misstates what happened here once maria renna received the drugs the d oakwood care less what she did with those drugs n the organization would not give maria renner the drugs before they knew she was ready to pay so whether or not this text before we're torah says to her are you ready with the money the next day to do the deal and she had to assure him that she is ready with the money there is no fronting you can make you you can make even know how the b t o operated there was no trust between the two and i would ask the court to reverse the conviction and of course count nine and eleven were tied to that one single council we've asked