yes now unless the court prefers otherwise i'd like to start of the issues that arise from the trial specifically the issue number three which is that the district court erred by letting the officers testify about their of the government says it was merely them testifying to their understanding of the call this distinction doesn't really hold any water under this record because the officers told the jury what they  which said just like just like i think christ would be able to talk about what he his opinion of what science was saying when he made certain statements i don't see why the officers who were also listening in on the call live could not also convey their your standing and it's different from those other cases it has it's not the opposite reek reviewing like up a whole witness just like the jury is listening to it and they're listening to the call tossers just listening to it without anyone aware that he is there and so when he says what his understanding is and i think of an you can bring an austrian do get a lay opinion that really circumvents the whole requirement of an expert opinion because it doesn't make any difference that officers are listening live does it make any difference because they could have been listening to recordings as well and then come in and say about this in this reporting in this what understand it's always an aunt's or giving his interpretation  through with the deal because it was a it's a i think it probably would your honor especially if like mr pride and mr so you have this a lot of communications that no one else knew about which is the case here you know when the answer does to these comes in with the jury believes that he does bring experts used the answer knows what he's talking about those was dangerous let the officer just give his lay interpretation of whatever conversation he hears in real time or i mean it could just be extended to in the recorded conversation because it's renee or so i think if you had conversation they are the more ation and the more they are intimately involved with the convent in conversation the less of a nation like why isn't that the way to think of it practically and of course your cross examination if the officers listen for three hours today it gives them something that the jury doesn't have they're not going to make the jury listener three hours probably the exactly around and i think that's when the officer has them undue sway with the jury and the way that it works is that the prosecutor should ask qualifying questions at the beginning and if there's any concern that the officers expertise their testimony counsel disk officers testified that they had monitored the call which right that they were just monitoring the call along with i mean they were of the government theory because each side of the theory that would explain why you would run well the way i reacted case on that flight instruction has you only need instruction under which the view of the facts under which it's relevant only needs to be a possible theory for why you're right it doesn't need to be the only plausible theory for why he runs a year you could have argued and defense to that to the generally but in this potions to a nation there has to be and has to be ruled out that you don't have an innocent reason he was there's no reason to giving instruction and i don't think there's a very good reason for the instruction to begin with the case law should allow the prosecutor to argue this and not be stopped from making that argument but there's really no reason for the judge to step in and say yeah that's it it's  call essentially the prosecutor was attempting to establish the background of the investigation and explain how they get up in the parking lot on that particular day so there are two questions there and the agent killed your no answered st whether or not he heard the word methamphetamine on the admit it no i did not hear the word methamphetamine and the nd was whether he heard a specific weight and he said that from his recollection everything was agreed upon as are the price and the weight the objection there was only a preserved objection with respect to agent goldberg been testified that it was his understanding that the transaction was for methamphetamine that was his understanding from the call but again he only answered two questions whether he participated in the call and did the understand that a deal w occur and then what is understanding was a bit the nature of the drug that was that was the extent of the testimony it was a stand a few lines of testimony and so even if there were an error which i think it's pretty clear under this court it was prudent there  don't think that that had an idea that we need rental cars that drug transactions workers on your front line argument there is that this was an expert what do you make of the  to go straight to prejudice if it so desires and the the offhanded remark that it's a common practice for drug dealers to use rental cars is frankly could not have any possible effect on the verdict when we have the seizure of drugs that were in the car we have the wire where the jury heard suggs saying you wanted half a pound telling him that there was no shake in the drugs actually shaking the bag and telling him you know look so when you look at the appropriately a designated pre trial girl so it's all the way i read our case law it suggests that you're allowed to just start asking qualifying questions to ensure that the expert that the officer is an expert in that you don't need to actually take the step to formally certify her as an expert is that your understanding of how these types of trials work here you have a different understanding as to how an officer should be failure to sort of go through the process of formally qualifying the experts and actually found the th circuit in similar to a similar situation found that there was an error but it was harmless and not qualify the expert but this court said there just wasn't any error at all and that was under an sort of weight that might be given to officer testimony if they are formerly called formally qualified but i think it is clear that sometimes they have to be and i think and i don't know that sort of law well but i think oftentimes that does take place outside the jury's presen if i can freely address the flight instruction as well i'd like to know if this also is reviewed for plane air because there the objection that mr suggs made below was only to is only argument was that unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proof he did not make the sort of facts specific argument that he makes now on appeal that there was no way that the jury could reasonably infer consciousness of guilt of the crime charged as opposed to his alternative defense theory that he brought marijuana to the transaction and the standard that this court has consistently applied is whether or not the inference that is the inference of consciousness of guilt was specifically of the crime charge inference need only be supported reasonably supported by the evidence and i think here his competing defense theory which was implausible and undermined by all the evidence was was not enough to overcome the reasonable inference that he was actually fleeing marijuana in the car so his defense theory was implausible i was inconsistent with the party statements and in any event there was no plane error here certainly not a prejudicial one in light of the overwhelming evidence i think the flight mr s you got to put they didn't use this yeah now the government rests partly on their argument that the fence just simply wasn't plausible and there was inconsistent then you wonder what happened here the instruction looks like the judge is favoring the government's the richmond and as for the homelessness analysis the government says well it's a couple lines here it's a single line here the single lines can be important when it's and you know the jury heard this phone call they probably can make heads or tails of it and the government in a few lines from an officer tells them what and that's that can be significant so