inspector agent santana could not identify mr sanchez as the person that came to the port of entry on the day question and this is significant because he had a lot of contact with significant in this case because what the government's relying on here is what they call a cause a link between agent santana and then the basically i think they call it a prosecuting agent that in santana basically testified that some time in the question was at about eleven ten that evening close to midnight did an individual approach so it instantaneous timeframe is somewhere questions regarding this biographical form that he was reviewing ways processing mr sanchez and that show that the actual time that the search in secondary  ministers sanchez was between eleven ten and eleven twelve and it was by officers in this form is supposed to contain also the primary inspector and he has asked the name of an agency involved sanchez get into secondary it's just not was clear what time he did it's not clear exactly what time even said tanner referred the person he saw but when you really look at it  citizen rather than being asked that he wasn't slurring that he didn't smell of alcohol i that he didn't have any signs of drunkenness and he also had a long time to do this during the conversation enduring a physical  to the secondary office and basically what it comes down to is when the government has their primary inspector that in court is asked is that you know that the person they say i don't know they need to but then they don't prove that it was insured at the time yeah that's some evidence that the bank was insured because it was five years before but that's not sufficient evidence and i think that's what you have here there's some evidence that m but i think the explanation for those many cases is if the bank wasn't sure during the relevant period it's very clear that there will be documentation of that fact and if the government doesn't produce documents well ok you can produce documents that were readily available to you you lose well here it's not like yes or no the documents were depend upon the ordinary frailties of human beings what they remember what they don't remember and so on actually your honor i disagree because there is a document document had the names of the secondary inspectors that took over the search of mr sanchez so yes the government had the person in their file to go to and they had time to do this because they knew this was a problem from the motion hearing and he was involved in a conflict of interest and he was being investigated by this very united states attorney's office at the time he testified it was this noble knowledge at this time i think was right when you're referring to news reports right so  asking whether or not there's a reasonable probability the outcome of the trial would have been different if alleged information would have been made available to the defense we need to look at the entire trial and when we do that you see that mr sanchez himself testified this was sanchez himself admitted that he is a citizen of mexico he admitted that he had no legal right to reenter the united states at the admit that he had had he had two prior citing the question of whether the government has proven it affirmative case did that did the defense offer any counter evidence to show that the nine hundred ninety two and actually ninety three fingerprints were not mr sanchez the sticker price we had to be have a do we have a we have a  securities violations and fraud says at least february of two thousand and four the state newspaper articles for that proposition the first is titled timeline pension troubles san diego article which doesn't support it and the next see also for the perry title municipal pension board members face charges los angeles times may seventeenth two thousand  own retirements once again nowhere in this article does it say that the federal bureau of investigation the securities and exchange commission and the office of the united states attorney used in diego last i understand i understand your point but the fact that he couldn't identify mr santana is consistent he couldn't it doesn't mean that there was somebody else because he couldn't remember any of the facial features of the person so it's not a present or taking the secondary the time frame and the fact that officer wouldn't in even on cross examination didn't mention anyone else being processed for prosecution that evening all contribute to  inference that could be drawn in favor of the government as we must given this pastor that he was the only person being processed at that time sunday night and that that that sanchez who he process for prosecution was in fact searched in secondary at eleven twelve pm same date almost the exact same time officer santana prosecution or being detained or being arrested and the very close proximity in time and those points alone are sufficient reasonable inferences to be drawn to support a conviction in this case and that issue saying i apologize i did not write great this brief and i did not check those sites but what is clear is that mr torres was formally charged in the state of california in may he testified in november and this u s attorney's office still has not denied that he was under investigation at the time of this testimony they just came up and they gave a big presentation how these two articles don't show that he was under investigation but they didn't deny that they were in investigating in fact i believe in the last month or two they have indicted people regarding the same offenses what would work in general what you see a problem let's have the district court deal with it now why wait till these proceedings are over and then make us go back into a district court and possibly have a different district court that handled the file do the twenty to fifty five it's just it seems she's you know i know that i wrote it yes there was an awful lot of brady problems the showed up during the course of the trial shows up during the cross examination of the witness there are lots of reasons to send that back this greater problem to the extent that exists