therefore she could not be convicted of aiding and abetting a felon in possession of a firearm the first trial was hung in the second trial of page three hundred eighty four the district court said there's a pretty strong argument the government has not proven that thorley in fort knew and that the reason is obvious from the record of the government tries to build an inference on an inference about of variety of different issues but none of them go to the issue of her knowledge and part of the problem with  arguing that darlene ford knew that her husband had a row house or even that she participated in that rowing has nothing to do with whether she knew his status as a convicted felon we don't even get to whether she knew unless we first agree with you that having reason to know is not sufficient so no it's not because the e in this case doesn't show she had reason to know not just that she didn't know but that she didn't have a reason to and the answer to that is very apparent because as we cite in the brief lost that's forever but that doesn't prove that because the home was lost or forfeited that mrs ford knew that the reason was because he was convicted of a crime and was whether she knew that the crime he was convicted for and put on probation was a felony correct yes let's wouldn't it be common sense suggests that she knew he was convicted of some crime serious enough that he was preoccupied for a long time that he was in court proceedings and they lost their house as a result of that isn't common sense that she who was living with him and continued to the raf to live with him knew that together the evidence is he was died there was a memorial service and he was buried that's it evidence and then she continued to live there after a room could a jury infer that she knew he was dead judge of course ok how don't be afraid but how does it well how is the how is this different in terms of the the inevitable openness of the facts that would be visible to one's spouse and you'd have the same common sense component belongs to the house i think i could agree with you about the secrecy between spouses sometimes but this is this is a result that directly impacted her home but your honor there is no educated that she thought the loss of her home had to say something to do with her son's criminal activity greg so if she knew that loss of property could be criminally related then she has more information  disposal information does not translate into knowledge of status her husband a convicted felon but there's a transfer to reasonable knowing that someone is a convicted felon he even losing at that was there a lay people who may not understand why at houses forfeited to the government they not may not understand forfeiture law in this record it is just asking who bought of of knowledge of a spouse and one of the in the government's twenty eight ga submission that even though the manso case which which this court decided january twentieth that case actually helps mrs ford if that's not help the government and the reason why is if you look at the facts at that pace of the act i but they'll ask you when you come back margaret i'm going for the united states if i need begin with the jury instruction question because in the government's view that really colors the sufficiency of the evidence issue judgments around you are actually correct there are three circuits that have health that the standard is knew or had reason to know on there is no circuit that has held that actual knowledge is required of am not familiar with that how about rosemont the supreme court case it is your close up on the i think it squares completely with with rosen and and that is because of the nature of the crime in you have to hold the defendant to a standard of no knowledge at all runs the risk of having totally innocent people who simply transfer momentarily a gun to another person be criminally liable to require actual knowledge is really requiring significantly more on the part of the aider and abettor than the principle is attributable to to require knew or had reason to know gives the jury two options they can decide either that there was actual knowledge or that the circumstances were such that a reasonable person would have had knowledge you've made point with some force that why require more knowledge than the actual consider and yet the principal is going to know automatically  they were convicted of a crime correct aider and abettor and they have no idea and that's why the middle ground of knew or had reason you know is the correct one but but that may i how do you how do you want what you mean by newark or reason to have no are you positing that this is a situation where someone with a pure heart and pure mensch right here but stupidity can be put behind bars because they loaned a neighbor a gun defendant has not raised which is that he did not renew his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's case the second is a certain that there was no actual knowledge on the part of the defendant in the government's view there is evidence from which the jury have concluded that the defendant had actual knowledge that if he did object to the instruction right correct and so that objection were correct then unless you rescued on harmless  vectored to that and if the giving of the right instruction he would not have resulted in an automatic government victory why would that not be well the two first of all as i'm sure you're well aware are separate analyses they have separate standards of review both of them and they don't up tale to the extent that the sufficiency of the evidence plays directly into the room with error aspect of the jury instruction assuming there is error and perhaps i should just go straight for the harmless er because in the government's view we do prevail and that the issue here was simply did the defendant know or have not only reason to know that her husband was a felon and let me go straight to the evidence from which  could have inferred that she had actual knowledge first of all she bought the gun she signed the paper in which she certified that she was not a felon so the jury could infer from that that she had knowledge of the significance of a felony when if instruction was wrong what difference does this make unless you're talking about overwhelming numbers i am talking about overwhelming and i'm also talking about two different problems of the charge one of which is actual knowledge and the other of which is reason to know and what do we know the jury convicted on the wrong we don't know but we are to review the evidence and the reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict and also to view the evidence in context in terms of if there was error whether it was harmless going to reasonable doubt and i am not hanging my hat exclusively on that statement although there's one of his statement by the defendant i would like to point out and that was where she testified at trial she said there is no law against a  buying gun parts the jury could put together from all of that that she know exactly that her husband was a felon because she bought the gun she passed the test she was able to pass the test because she was not a felon he was able to possess a firearm parts because the law doesn't prohibit that when on the part of a felon but that's not all the evidence and the reasonable inferences both are overwhelming for their own sake and also demonstrate harmless error beyond reasonable doubt with respect to jury instruction as judge thompson pointed out these two people have been married together for forty years the man sosa paid a case recently decided suggests that the nature of the relationship is very significant on the issue of knowledge this defendant had to have been aware of the illegality taking place in massachusetts there were two houses one of which was to her the second of which she occupied with her husband they reeked of marijuana when the police showed up the second house with the one that was dated to her was forfeited a reasonable jury could say that no matter how uninformed an individual if you lose a house it's been did did to you you would at least ask the reason and if asking the reason she would find out it was because of her husband's felony conviction there is no escaping that she had knowledge of the illegality in maine which was virtually identical to the illegality in massachusetts that led to her husband's conviction she that the architecture of the house was such that little tiny living quarters up stairs paled in comparison to the downstairs that was permeated with all kinds of drug cultivat quitman she was the principal bookkeeper she was the one who made the deposit to have the ledgers that accounted for five hundred eighty eight thousand dollars worth of drug profits the statements that i have just  counted which she made to the police and before the jury permitted the jury to infer that she had actual knowledge and then another thing that permitted the jury to infer that was her pervasive lies about everything she lied knowing that her husband was a felon she lied knowing that anything illegal was taking place in massachusetts she'd lie knowing that there was anything taking place in maine in the house in which she lived she testified that she only realized that there was a cultivation operation taking place in the basement when the police showed up to arrest her and she claimed that her sons had nothing to do with it even though they fled the house covered with marijuana debris so the in the government's view a correct instruction had a correct instruction been given and i'm not a lost think of any person with that particular point judge chaos i am not aware but i am aware of this circuit's precedent with respect to the review ability of jury instructions as a whole and the third prong of this court's analysis is whether or not in a correct jury instruction prejudiced the defense and the government's view in light of the overwhelming evidence of her guilt and in light of the the evidence from which the say the three that i cited here are right and there's circuits out there that don't have any knowledge require the ninth circuit has held that there are in one opinion that no knowledge at all is required on the theory that because no knowledge is required by the principle no knowledge should be required by the eight or any better that's circuit another panel has sort of questioned the validity of that but that still remains the law in the ninth circuit but that there are three circuits that what is it here to they knew or had reason to know it or none that requires actual knowledge and doesn't going to the had reason to know less a new governance burden well if it lessens the government's burden and it's the right standard of review that's the law circuit which requires you know knowledge or whether you buck both trans and impose an actual knowledge requirement where in the government you there is no authority that supports that view if the court has other questions i'd be happy rationale completely out of context what galled the district court in this case was that the defendant lied the court went through the standard for imposing the obstruction enhanced meant said that the you have to be very careful to make sure that it is knowing falsity and not failed memory on some other thing and then the court ticked off all of the critical aspects of the defendant's testimony about which you lied she lied that you didn't know was that it was a felony she lied that you didn't know there was marijuana being cultivated in massachusetts she lived it you didn't know that there was marijuana being cultivated in maine she lied when she said the first time she learned about it was when the police arrived you think it was it was proper application of the guidelines absolutely i do because the standard of review for the obstruction adjustment by itself is clear error and the court has made very clear that that is generally a credibility determination from the finder of fact who has looked this woman in the face and what the judge said after saying either and then he said more about following my sons and not my husband i won't go to trial in this you would have been looking at a much lower by the light range so what the judge did basically was on the one hand he increased the sentence based on the perjury on the other hand he enhanced his sentence based on the defendant going to trial even though this award was never offered a pl the judge imposed the sentence based on two separate factors but just getting away from the sentence for a minute just to respond to a few of of the government's points of but what the government is  basically saying is that because the defendant made all statements about marijuana that that would have magically mean she knows her husband was a convicted felon those are see is there a crime that occurred and by using a formulation that the judge did in this case reasons you know you do in decrease the burden of proof i see my time is up if there are any other questions