court his attorney at the time mr lang then wrote a letter to the prosecutor on the case explaining that mr ought to want to quote was the victim of a much larger scam and was unwittingly used by certain individuals to perpetrate a fraud in the letter mr lemon discusses the results of his own and best to be a sion and his conclusion that in fact a fraud had been perpetrated on mr twanna not by mr antoine to the letter does not concede guilt in fact just the opposite the letter portrays mr antoine as a victim importantly another plead guilty to th degree larceny or any other species of fraudulent activity connection with that case instead the case is resolved when he enters a guilty plea to disorderly conduct we renew the argument made by trial counsel below that the admission of the article sorry the letter was unduly prejudicial which of course begins with an assessment of whether the letter was probative and we there's no evidence in the record that mr antoine was aware of or ever endorsed the contents of the letter but even if we assume that mr twanna was aware of the contents of the letter the letter does not prove his guilty mind in fact it disavowed his guilt it doesn't prove that mr antoine and knew that similar conduct with illegal discussed and so at appendix a page i'm sorry this is my appendix twanna the pending page sixty eight the court in considering the image to build a says the government has no insider in this case there no cooperating witness they don't have evidence on the issue of the defendant intent then again in my appendix page eighty one the court says there's an avalanche of evidence of someone being but there's not comparable there's not a comparable avalanche of evidence of intent and this is picking up on the argument that the government made my appendix page seventy five dollars where the government says we have no cooperating witnesses we have no wire called we have no other evidence of the defendant's knowledge besides the prior convictions and the letter attended to those convictions so well i would certainly agree as my statement of fact in the brief indicates there is plenty of evidence that the government presented about fraud the government by its own admission and the district court recognition the weakness in their case had to do with mr antoine is intent and the government used this letter link this letter suggested that the letter was evidence of intent it was evidence that the jurors could use to fill in that gap that they had and they themselves identified in their case the problem we argue is the way in which they use that letter in the argument that they made about it the upshot of the government's argument was once a fraudster always a fraudster and that is precisely the type of propensity i for b is designed to prohibit on top of that what is unusual about this if you have one minute lap then the letter really embodies speech to the d that he was raising in connection with the twenty four team case the jurors in this case should not have been comparing the defense presented in our case to the defense presented in a previous case that's not what the jurors should have been focused on the believability of his defense and our case should have been measured against the government presented the evidence presented in our case and nothing more not what asking a question sure i understand you're trying to make this overbred argument with respect to the warrant now on appeal was that the range demand or standard different coun i represent the united states on this appeal and conduct of the trial and other proceedings below the defendants in this case were convicted following a fair trial free of any air following trials the district court in bend  afforded the defendant every opportunity to raise any post trial motions and properly denied those motions following a series of arguments as well as a hearing there's no basis to disturb  rulings that were made at trial and those challenges are meritless focusing on the court's admission of government exhibit sixty seven which was the letter from a torn us prior attorney to argument misses the mark because in that letter counsel expressly the knowledge is that the same conduct was criminal even if a twana at the time he got involved in that conduct did not know that it was criminal so i provided powerful evidence that at least as of the date of that letter which was directly in the middle of the charge conspiracy it was on trial a trois knew or learned that his activity was criminal but then continued to be involved in the same and similar fraudulent conduct and therefore his continued involvement was intentional and kno was consulted and contacted in connection with that letter for example it states that a twana was contacted by what he believed was a call center that presented him with the opportunity to be given a commission from the sale of medical benefits from the medical benefits program that type of information is information that had to have come directly from a twana and therefore that argument should also be rejected as we noted in our brief even if there was air in the admission of any of these exhibits that hair was harmless contrary to the arguments presented today that there was no other evidence on knowledge and ten the record makes it clear that there was strong powerful evidence including the defendant's own words where they communicated with each other about the scheme including tax where they discuss cover stories for their fake businesses the reversals of funds out of their bank accounts as well as text messages discussing the impersonation of a victim's reported business manager which was used in order to try to trick a a large wire transfer turnout to the arguments that are raised by dinner on his motion for a new trial and on appeal and quote and was therefore overly broad this is simply incorrect this provision of the warrant serves an entirely different purpose which is to identify the specific offenses for which the government has established probable cause which is one of the requirements for a sufficiently particular law warrant the provisions that directly follow painting a list of the particular evidence fruits and or instrumentalities that can be seized each of those nine items on that list was supported by probable cause upon which the warrant was based and warrant was therefore not over the broad a dinner on also argues that the warrant was to not sufficiently particular this argument was properly rejected by the district court at the outset the warrant plainly status as the basic elements of the particularities requirement it list charge crime described the place to be search and specifies the items to be seized by the relation to the designated crime as required under nd circuit law i didn't around also argues that the warm should was soundly rejected by the nd circuit in the united states st all great case as the court explained there a warrant authorizing the government to search an entire computer for a wide range of potentially relevant material might be broad but it does not violate the particularities requirement this is analogous to a warrant that allows the government to search a drug dealer's entire home where there is probable cause to believe that evidence relevant to that drug activity york and finally getting back i just wanted to gleefully come back to deputies question and where the specificity of the warrant was raised and if you look at the court's discussion of the