point one when it reached the legal conclusion that he was the instructor to teacher and the supervisor of that process it is our position that the court error because there was no indication that he exercised control over his co defend and the reason that is is because he was the co defendants were not at his beck and call they were he was invited into their home and he imparted knowledge on to them we believe that imparting knowledge on to somebody is not the same as exercising control over them they know how to cook their soil before they met him now they did not know why why isn't he the instructor we believe that instructing we he is the instructor he did instruct them on the process but we don't believe that that's the same a supervisor and somebody in the sense that you are exercising control over them and what i'm trying to say having a hard time with that concept if they didn't know how to do it it wouldn't have gotten done and he's the one who took the you know the reins so to speak to teach them exactly what to do and then observe them and make sure they were doing it appropriately so i i'm having a hard time figuring out why he isn't had a leadership role here to answer that question i think lopez scent of all this particular instructive individual is there did not know how to interpret and then speak english they brought in somebody who did and was able to provide and lead them through the drug transactions by interpretating language for them but what what the focus there was that regardless of that special skill that the individual brought to the transaction he did not exercise control over them and in the sense that he wasn't telling them what to do or when to do it or how to do it they still had the freedom to engage in the conduct or not and the translation as they are doing everything it's like you can hold up google translate and have the same result but here he's not translate he's like google how to cook it and that's kind of a whole different proposition isn't it but then i think that creates a little bit of tension your honor in a sense that the line of cases that that talk about when they talk about the very least  got to be some sort of control over the other co defendants and i think what i'm saying here is that imparting knowledge and teaching somebody something in and of itself is not enough i think that there has to be some exercise of control over them i think if you step back and look at this if anything that he was invited into their home to teach them a skill and we conceded that that he taught them how to make the hash oil but at that point when he made part of the knowledge they went ahead and repeatedly made the hash oil themselves there was no situation where he was telling them continue to tell them after the fact how to do it he watched them as you say watch them a complete you know batches and that's effectively he didn't exercise control over them and know in no different terms as i and leading you through might if they were doing it wrong would be correct them i don't know if that's in the record your honor what i don't know i mean i think we can imply that i mean he taught them and then he watched them do it and to make sure they were doing it correctly and if they were doing correctly unfortunately as we saw in this case the consequences are substantial  so if somebody is teaching you watching you do it assisting you to such a degree that if you do something wrong they correct you i'm having a hard time i'm really having a hard time seeing how he's not leading them in some fashion in the same way that if i had a plumber come into my house and teach me how to fix my pump and he leads me through the process of fixing my pump in no way by any means as he has so many leaves invited him in there i think that i brought him in there i request that he be there and teach me something and maybe the way i understand the concept of supervisor in the three b one point one term is that you know it's important to this individual client was not walter white where the defendant just gave them a book on how to make hash oil and vanished he supplied the meat you quitman necessary to produce this acquit to produce this substance he was the one who had the knowledge of his whole poor his whole role in this transaction was to teach them and to instruct them and as judge or pointed out to correct them if they made a mistake there's no evidence in the record that the co defendants ever manufactured oil independent of the defendant not in fact the pre sentence reports suggest to the contrary so if the defendant is there watching and in a position to correct and is the person who has the knowledge to make that correction that supervision he doesn't have to be the leader of the whole enterprise it wasn't a leadership enhanced it was a supervisor it hits me and on this factual record there's just no way the district court could have clearly err in finding the defendant act as a supervisor unless the court has any other questions thank you honesty do you have any rebuttal all right thank you  well next year argument from the other two defendants kapl