read judge basically relied on several statements that my clients gave during the course of this matter my clients are rather immigrants they're young they are nonce english speaking  accumulated quite a bit of money through savings client abraham was the one who kept the money was a burglary that occurred at their home invaders kamen tied them up search warrant subsequent to when you look at these exchanges between the officers and both of them they do seem to be initially just claiming very clearly that they had anything to do with what's in this box  and so i think what concerned the district court was how you pretty first at one moment say you know it's not my box i don't know anything about it and then the next moment say oh but actually it's my money in the box the other question i just wonder whether the record shows whether they are legal permanent resident aliens or citizens are undocumented or do we know anything about that they are not they are not citizens they're applying for citizenship but they are not documented citizens ok with regards to the first issue and the only person to talk to the police that night was my client pedro abraham was not there and what he said and what he ultimately testified to was that he did know what abraham did with the money it would cash checks that would get paid factory workers it would take the money he would take the money abraham would take the money they would pool it he would abraham with them put it in the safe which pedro did not know where he put it so when pedro says to the police i really don't know what's in that box or in that safe he's telling them factually that i don't know because i don't know what abraham is doing with that money he's my brother i trusted him with it he could do whatever he wanted with it except we were saving it and we were saving it for a variety of reasons there's a ledger that's mentioned in the record the ledger would seem to indicate that this is some sort of drug transaction and that sort of thing in their depositions they indicated that that ledger was for a home they were building for their mother s and has to do with the home and the building of a home for their mother in mexico so when the intruders come in i think one of the things the judge finds that militates against my clients was that there were some a dish of drug activity there was a gun that was found there the record will show during the depositions that the home invaders left that gun there they didn't have a gun it was left there by the home invaders why they did it we have no idea but they did there was some  of that there was white powder on a digital scale that there was a plot bags with zip ties well as you can imagine these guys are working stiffs these guys take their lunch to work the ziploc bags and the ties are sandwich bags not unusual for anybody to find in their kitchen you may have them in your own kitchen the digital scale is what the white powder is flour up noce no lebron salts were done there's no finding of any cocaine there's no finding of any illegal substance with the exception of a gram or so of cannabis that's and that's found in somebodies bedroom not abrahams and not pedro's yet the judge chooses to believe that those are indicia of some sort of illegal drug activity so maybe the big question here is really a process question of who has the burden of proof whether this is really appropriate for summary judgment maybe you could talk about it from that point of view for a minute i think that i think the case that your honors or your judges have have decided that two hundred thirty one thousand dollars really kind of speaks to that and it basically says capture right now does not shift the burden to the people that are claiming the money the burden is on the government stays on the government to determine that there are some illegal activity to do what this judge has done here would shift the burden to my clients to show that these were legitimate that these shouldn't be forfeited yet that's not what happened excuse me that is in fact what happened so the burden of proof remains on the government it deborah ships to my knowledge based on the laws that i'm reading in the statute does that i think you folks have addressed that shows that they're going to find a lot of dog sniffs on a lot of money that may or may not be illegal activity or illegal drugs yet did alert to that if it but there was no going to stand that there was no finding of any drugs  whatsoever and i don't understand that you know we have this case united states versus thirty six thousand six hundred long long opinion that relies on a lot of scientific information for the proposition that the dog will in the lurch unless there's very substantial ok because the others that attract the dogs fade rapidly so if you only have a small amount of pain by the time the dog appears they won't sniff it i think the case of one hundred thousand dollars in one hundred speaks to that as well and it basically finds that that the dog sniff may or may not be it's not the gold standard of determinations whether there's actually drugs there's no evidence here about whether this dog was reliable i mean what so one theory is the dog alerts only when there's enough cocaine the other is the dog  alerts when the dog's been properly trained to alert when there really are drugs there and instead of alerting for goodies that he gets every time it alerts or something like that i think that's true but for our purposes i'm not sure that's critical in the scheme of things to make a determination whether my clients have standing to maintain that this but the ownership and their and their money be the question then may be is that legitimately tied with a criminal activity or a drug related activity but that's something for a trial of the fact to determine not i think for purposes of summary judgment summary judgment just a term of whether they have a legitimate interest whether they have standing in the legitimate interest in this money to to have the case go forward to have a the question whether the money is related to drug trafficking right it's the yes issue that that is relevant to yes but that doesn't go to where you might introduce evidence that this dog alerts one hundred percent of the time correct correct so would go towards the ultimate determination and not whether summary judgment should lie please the court counsel my name is matthew e bird appearing i'll be happy united states and i do want to address a few points at the outset some of the items that counsel is mentioning here today for instance the that the draw that excuse me the the dog step these go to the for food ability of the proceeds that's that's not what this appeal is about that's not what was raised in contention by the claimants in the district court and that's not the basis of their appeal the only basis of their appeal is th first prong of the court's findings for summary judgment would have to which have to do whether or not the claimants met their requisite burden of proof as to their ownership interest right why did they have to prove the ownership because nine hundred eighteen united it's been conceded that that it's not his money i guess except that there are other interpretations of the record under which he doesn't even find out that that was where abraham had to put in the money until after the police leave and the other interesting thing about this case is the arithmetic actually works out in their favor the amount of money they earned over the years looking at the evidence in the record how much was in the safe how much might might you be sending to or hoping to send a mexico for this house it's all possible so i don't know that it's summary judgment material they pedro cruz is hernandez's claim is his november two thousand and fourteen affidavit and in that affidavit he is detailing his latest position which is that he didn't know on the night in question that that money was in fact his that's the suggestion in the a idavit until after the police left correct but as the district court correctly pointed out in reviewing the record that position the november two thousand and fourteen affidavit is flatly contradicted by other aspects of the sworn testimony of pager cruz hernandez where he says he in fact spoke to his brother on the night in question before the police arrived does he say before the police arrive he says on the night in question and he says that his brother spoke to him on the phone police and what he ultimately said in his november affidavit before this court i do just want to emphasize that the distribution was given for the fact that there was this two hundred seventy one thousand a claimant pedro cruz hernandez on the after these armed intruders came into their home in the mill a night demanding to know where the drugs in the money were that he spoke with his brother and that his brother abraham directed him to take that safe out of the basement and move it and so pedro cruz already just moved it into the van that's his that's a statement in the record repeatedly to actually has a reason that it's not just sitting there in the house right been tendered and provided in discovery that was never contested that was and that was not in dispute and the reliability of the dots dog number one alerted to the back of the vehicle and to a door of the vehicle and then that's all there is they don't actually find little baggies of cocaine or anything they'll be alert to the presence of drugs in response to what was in the safe and that was currency and right so so the alert at the back of the car where there's no safe is not in response to the presence of any drugs in the back of the car it's a risk just residue there for all i know but there's no there are no drugs there it correctly it's in response to the safe being in the back of the residue alert correct and so consistent with this court's decision in the thirty thousand fines case from two thousand and five that that those alerts are entitle to probative weight in the court looked at the district court looked at the two judgment in this case one has to do with whether or not the claimants met their requisite preponderance of evidence burden on ownership the separate alternative bases is whether or not the government met its burden under ninety three  the government submitted to the district court that it met its burden under ninety three c it also submitted to the court the additional attorney to basis that the claimants could not meet their requisite burden because there was not evidence of their ownership and the district cour misters i think you have a small amount of time relative to the question of why was your money in the van my client abraham was called by pedro his brother after the in this instance under any circumstances there was no cocaine found in say there was no cocaine found in the home there was no cocaine found on any of the inhabitants of the home that were there but according according to your opponent these dogs you know  a huge quantity of currency get contaminated by ok if it's used if it's used in some fashion when somebody else has the money they very well be contaminated under those circumstances well under what what would be evident what would indicate that your clients had just happened that their savings this two hundred seventy one thousand was was in contact