logic applied by the trial court in denying the role reduction the first assignment of error goes to the court's conclusion that the appellant should be denied the roll reduction because he had transported contraband two times in two days this is contrary to amendment six hundred thirty five of the united virtue of having transported second time in two days into a willful participant the court will notice that the thing that runs through my brief the thing that runs through the defen case united states versus rojas me on where the trial court is directed to look not just to the individuals who are brought the for the court trial or before the court for sentencing but to look at all likely actors who could possibly be involved in the if that's and in this case how much was involved here how much with each hearing approximately eleven kilograms of cocaine i would we're asking for this case to be remanded for sentencing and for the court to consider whether or not my client should be entitled to a role reduction the court army considered yes your honor yes i will continue with the second point and go to the third if the court will permit the rojas meon case once again the ninth circuit has said clearly that the court is to consider all the likely actors and somewhat anomalously the trial court did state in fact that it had no doubt that other actors existed in this case and it went on to name all of the other likely actors that could possibly exist beyond the stor court your honor the court should have considered perhaps the two precedents which this court has written in this area i would cite you to two of the cases the court couldn't have done anything else then speculate perhaps that these other people existed but if the court were to look at the context of the case and realized that so much contraband was involved and the social history of the defendant which was presented to it which is he was just a very poor individual there's no way that he could have had any sort of proprietary interest in this no authority for making decisions the fact that t free your honor that brings us to perhaps the most pivotal factual consideration in this case which is that the defendant actually took a polygraph which corroborated the statement which he made to the customs agents who arrested him in which he tested and passed for the issue of whether he did this offense in return for monetary compensation or whether he committed this offen however the precedence of the ninth circuit state that the issue of coercion can also be considered in the context of a minor or minimal role reduction  there was coercion and that there was no other reason for this young man to have participated but then to turn around and say that this person who was coerced in unwillingly did this i played any greater than a minor or minimal participant is wrong i don't think the district court did find it there was no other reason that the defendant did this because the district court also noted that that that while there was coercion that that he did it twice and then he expected money for it and s was that's all we know about it but the polygraph proved only that he had done this because of the threats of coercion his apartment had been broken into and he'd been receiving  telephone calls for a month threatening him thank you  you know afternoon please the court my name is response to it i'm assisting united states attorney from tucson arizona i represent the appellee in this case there's really one issue here and the issue comes down to is whether or not the judge was clearly erroneous in denying this downward departure as your honor correctly noted the judge did give deference to the defendant and several other areas he accepted the polygraph evidence he said he was considering that based on that he gave a greater deduction reduction the offense level than was recommended by the probation officer in this case who recommended a fifty seven month sentence and essentially the judge said i've accepted that you've got this polygraph i'm going to accept your argument about caressed and coersion and he gave a total of four points for both dressed in concert the rest and coersion as well as average behavior but the court went on to and this is the crux of the case the court was required to and did look at the totality of the circumstances based on all relevant conduct the court made specific findings in this case and based on those findings set forth the reasons why he wasn't going to get a reduction or an adjustment for a minor minimal role now i understand th disagrees with that but his argument is that based on the fact of the claim of course and arrests that essentially that would make the defendant a minor minimal player and that just can't be because if you equate the situation of a bank robbery where somebody himself his father lived down in the switches way south his mother actually lived in los angeles and the judge was very concerned about the fact that if somebody starts running those cocaine and the day that the defendant w the twenty four pounds in this case he had the money from having run a load the day before he wasn't charged with that previous load it wasn't included in the calculation so essentially what you've got is that the spent who came to the court sensing provided all these reasons and the judge went through made and tailed analysis made the findings that were required by ninth circuit law and is actually consistent with other cases here from the ninth circuit ones that we've cited in our brief the  case where it's very similar factually one time career the panic claims she didn't know the knowledge and understanding of the scope and structure of the enterprise or activities of other that's the exact same language that mr walker's charges used in this case for claiming he should get a reduction for that the finding of kirsten seems to me necessarily carries with it the implication that you know he was in fact controlled by somebody else in other words or had to be somebody else another participant who was more culpable the judge found that there were almost necessarily implicit in the corporation finding not necessarily under the facts of this case because the judge made a finding that there were other participants in here numerated some of them the people that control the drugs the people that loaded and together with the fact that he was acting under coercion under another words you know somebody else's direction doesn't that make him a minor artist and not necessarily what the language is of the cases that we cite in our brief it depends on the totality in this sort of circumstance even though the defendant made a claim and the judge gave him credit for coersion the judge made a specific finding that under the circumstances and the participants involved the spanish still played a significant role and he made that specific finding on the record as one of the reasons for not giving a departure for the role and our position is that the judge looked at each of the factors made specific findings and he said ok i'm going to that area and our position is that since he made those findings and apply the law under the target circumstances that really wasn't clearly erroneous and that's the standard and when we talked about well the judge didn't have enough to do more he would have had  counsel conceded he would have to speculate it's the senate's burden in order to get this to go forward and convince the judge to have them make findings to support of it and defend it couldn't and didn't in this case because of the facts that were involved for that reason we believe that the judge made his factual findings they were not clear we own erroneous and for that reason we believe that the sense should be affirmed th not really applicable here because that is one which is really involving fairly concerted activity prosecutors and the threats on two individual walking into a bank here we have a case where there is obviously the court accepted highly concerted activity and the defendant is playing what i believe to be the most fungible role the one where he is procured not by the incentive of making easy money but the incentive of trying to keep himself and his family safe and for these reasons the court is committed here because none of the three proffered reasons for denying the role reduction hold water and it ignores i believe the overriding consideration in this case which is that the pallant the defendant in this matter was forced to do what he did