appeal issue about the district court's failure to give the informant credibility as instructions and then in the supplemental grief i requested permission to raise the blakely issue the government has opposed that motion and i'm wondering from the court whether you would like me to go for with ok thank you ron and then i'll go directly to my issue about the jury instructions in regard to this issue and it was at the close felt here to give that model jury instruction for point which is the informant credibility instruction and first i'd like to address the issue about the standard of review that applies here and it's the defense's position that the abuse of discretion applies and not the plain error is that the government claims and then understanding here the sequence of events at the time of joy charging is very important to understanding this this standard of review issue the court challenge the jury then the court dismissed the jury to go to lunch then dismissed the clerk didn't dismiss the jury to deliberate at that point immediately  given if we're going to look at them as a whole we look at instruction number eight which was the general witness credibility instruction and then we look at the model thirty point trial which is about the fact that mr garcia had entered a plea those two given together taken together i don't believe it's the homes requirement here we don't really important distinction in the hans case that general witness instruction that week was given in this case although in holmes if you look very closely they add the language listed directly out of the informant credibility instruction which we believe should have been given which says that a witness has the joy needed to also consider whether the witness reese was receiving money or benefits from the government in connection with that particular case maybe going to happen to him so the jury got a full sense look this guy thinks he's going to get something out of the government because he's fine there was tragedy the jury and because for those reasons we've asked that his conviction be reversed here thank you find any more paper other than what you find out if the court is going to find that the defendant did not nor did he raise it in his opening brief  that we did file and that that that that would be our position with respect to the waiver issue if the court is going to find that the defendant has not raised and decides to entertain the issue then of course we would want the opportunity to fully briefed the  to the issue raised in the opening brief that is the question of whether or not you don't you wish you had agreed that that instruction should be given no and the reason  court might have given honest direction four point ten was raised to it's not there by the trial judge after the jury had been instructed i understand after argument had been made after the jury had been instructed twice to consider this witness's testimony with great caution which in my view is functionally equivalent to telling the jury that the witnesses testimony should be considered with greater caution than that of other witnesses so that to call a jury back half after they had started their deliberations they had they they had and sent to the jury room they were in the jury room presumably beginning their deliberations at the time that this issue was discussed after lunch by counsel so that if the if the judge had decided to give the instruction it would have required the jury to be called back and be given this one instruction which in the government's view would have unnecessarily highlighted once again this witness is testimony and essentially told  after lunch the judge with counsel addressed this issue so that from what we can determine from the record the jury had returned from lunch had begun their deliberations at what the record shows is that you sent the jury to launch told them to begin their deliberations upon their return and there is no additional information in the record that suggests that he told them to not begin deliberations until after plane or situation we're dealing with the abuse of discretion and in our view the outcome is no different the the question here is whether or not the jury instructions as a whole fairly  addressed the issues of trial or more misleading and in this case there is no question in our view that the jury instructions taken as a whole were not misleading and b did adequately address the issues raised the the cases that we cited in our brief  under the abuse of discretion standard i think clearly support that view and as i've indicated before the giving of jury instructions twice telling the jury to view this witness it is testimony with great caution is functionally equivalent to the language that the defendant now claims court just to clarify the factual issue about whether the jury got the question and i'll wait for you to the record it's a transcript fourteen eighty three and it's in the supplemental excerpt of the records provided by the government page seventy seven where the court specifically says if we conclude that we should give it to them then i want to give that's the instruction to them as soon as they get back from lunch and i believe as you know i just noted that we're thirty has been met here the requirements are all