with respect to the court's admission into evidence evidence of the september twentieth two thousand and three drug seizure i believe in this case that the court's there big the court's decision to admit that  the of the evidence says you was a saint and i agreed with you and i i went down the drain in that case yes but so were you going to this case you have the exact and not only that but since that case is decided the third and i would like to address some of the other issues before my time when isaac talked about your client going to a specific location where the interacted with other members of the conspiracy and they talked about drug related get back i want to get back to your point about the two thousand and three seizure one of the requirements that the government had was to prove the existence of the conspiracy correct and as that the existence of the conspiracy was important to prove as to all defendants so wasn't that certainly that testimony by the two thousand and three seizure was provocative and under four o three ther i before the court to the transcript in which asic testified that he was advised by the coconspirator mark that the cocaine of season september twenty two thousand three be long to their organization and was the object of the conspiracy was cocaine as opposed to some other contraband you know whatever accounting you have to show that they knew it was he was transporting cocaine we have to show that he  that's true but there's no evidence that he knew what was cocaine well that's a question for the jury and jury made a determination that in fact he knew it was cocaine how did they know it was cocaine how did the jury  determination up you know rationally how could they find that he knew it was cocaine that he was transporting and not some other it other contraband or something or based on the testimony of authorized to make a rational inference that in fact mr woods knew what he was doing in didn't i think say he delivered it receive five thousand dollars in return yes that's what indicates that isaac testified that in fact mr was brought the cocaine to north carolina prove that he knew what he was doing was cocaine that was the object of the conspiracy one of the four things which is required to be prove beyond a reasonable doubt why the record shows that he do is get five thousand dollars on but it's in his brief the question about the the contact with your one twenty five and your one fifty nine their argument is and it's raised by another one of the defendants the argument was that the district court should have interrogated all of the jurors to make sure that there hadn't been any that they didn't become notified that someone tried to tamper one twenty five concerned where they had any other contact with any other members of the jury and they both indicated they had not there was no need to go any further well you don't have to believe what they say you don't know whether there's take or not unless you also interrogate the balance of the of the panel i mean they could have said that you say they want to get involved anymore but i think why did they have an obligation to speak to the rest of the panel to see whether they were taken with the knowledge i think that the district c was trying to keep from involving the rest of the jury unnecessarily that is if the court is satisfied that the sponsors it received from the two suspected jurors that is one fifty nine and one twenty five that there was no further contact with any other juror i submit to the court that therefore the court was correct so he got a j she's got to take their word for it right even though he could verify whether they were correct or not by asking the balance of the panel it got to take their word for correct well i might not buy that  the specter of involve itself in the other jurors business the bottom line is that he asked the two particular jurors who were involved and the other jurors also had a a affirmative concern about is you know one twenty five admitted she told brother sister an aunt who happen to be one fifty nine correct yeah over the period of time in which she continued to be part of the jury and i mean if she said anything about this alleged jury tampering that that's a very prejudicial that's very prejudicial information because if in fact somebody's trying to tamper with the jury there's a strong presumption that these guys must be guilty or they would be trying to preserve you know pressure the jury and it's almost like a you know an almost a reaction the other way that will show these guys well i mean it's just a question contact unauthorized contact and no other jurors other than one twenty five and one fifty nine you pointed to the court there in essence what you're saying is the backlash could have been worse if they had a very dear hold your correct well a backlash thank you very much respect to  the agreement was to possess what intensity or go all the evidence in this case was that your client mr woods was involved in this big time cocaine drug conspiracy was in that a reasonable inference for the jury to draw well