that they intended to put forth a confession in this case and the defense asked if the government was allowed to parse out it mentioned that also the nine knowledge statements would be allowed to come out that was at the time of the motion hearing agents their eyes that they intended to bring out statements that mr bates said deny knowledge or said that he was not aware of marijuana concealed within the car he was driving on april fifteenth but then later changed her story and said i thought there might be marijuana concealed within the car ok those are the things that the government intended to introduce that intended to bring out and mr bates counseled wanted to bring out the statements that there were denied knowledge statements made and that only after a lengthy interrogation did mr bates say anything differently that was the purpose of speaking of the rule of completeness and allowing all of those statements to come and not allowing the government to parse out the statement so we indicating guilt make frequent the last two days he transported something illegal but even better was drug use something else and this time he's caught transporting drugs the fact full time or largely full time transporter drugs and other contraband and this time he says i didn't know i was transporting drugs that's not propensity that sort of going to the statements of money smuggling statements of sixty prior loads there wasn't any evidence presented by the government that mr biggs had to leave on those prior occasions that loads brought into the united states that the car he drove on april thirteenth or a fourteenth contained narcotics and that's a different differentiates those times from the time charged within the indictment the time of april fifteenth apprehension he described the circumstances of meeting ruby the person that he believed that he was driving a car for it's really inseparable in terms of being an extra quickly intertwined with the offense on the on the very day question and so certainly i think to the crossings evidence of in addition there was the fact that that was essentially brought out on cross examination of the defendant you know addition to government an act was very clear about tending to prove the other other ah this is a very different case this is this is clearly based on the defendant's statements again it's a spontaneous offering it's not something where extrinsic evidence is coming in and so certainly the government should be allowed to put in that type of statement which is notice and i'll get to people rodriguez and second there is certainly the issue of notice which is and the court found this and gave an extended discussion of it on the record at the time of the new trial sensing motion and that is that even if it was for the district or but that's really a red herring because the issue at that point was simply the voluntariness of the government in have to bring out the substance of the statement she was simply what are the state anything and if the end of the day it was clear the government intended to introduce the statements there let the statements were there were discussions at the time of the eliminate hearing in the voluntariness it was clear a trial so there was really no there was no issue of surprise there's no unfairness to the to be felony defendant in those circumstances  so i think the only reasonable inference in the record is that certainly defendant knew the statements were coming out and there was no no harm no foul if you will with respect to people rodrigues off dressed everything i think who we i think that i can fairly say that now these are admissions again in that case a post arrest statement was given as in this case in that case as in this case the defendant admitted to routinely transporting drugs into the us and so to the extent he's discussing involvement with other acts whatever they may be on other days the court in that case certainly saw fit to allow them in as admissions provided they were there we think those are admissions are certainly relevant to the issues of the case also i would note that it's not part of the transaction that was charged in this case the transaction that was charged with importation of marijuana and april fifteenth there was no conspiracy charge the government would have no problem and redacting the parts of the statement that pertained to other acts in money smuggling passenger and sixty prior loads any of those statements could easily have been parked out and redacted the government did not need to introduce those statements in order to give  cohesive story as to what happened at the port of entry like they are just like to say that any statement that a person makes at the time of interrogation doesn't automatically make that statement relevant there are numerous statements which people make at the time of interrogation during under that kind of stress that don't necessarily become relevant in a case a person could say that they had gone to a y of the day before they could say that they have chance and that's part of why they're explaining what happened that doesn't mean it makes it relevant into the instant offense and then it's relevant before the jury and have to be relevant to the into the sense in order for that come in before the jury