essentially involves two pieces of evidence at trial those is of evidence for a one some phone evidence admitted through wiretaps that we are arguing should not have been admitted the other as to the st piece of evidence i mentioned the phone evidence in our brief in trial we are objecting to essentially the text message of events and these text messages further can divide down party opponent the st thing that the proponent of the evidence essential message show is that the person making the statement was the party opponent lots of times you have somebody you may make a statement on a recording or a video or directly to a witness and it's pretty easy to stared or discern that's the statement from the party on and that's the party upon it but here we're dealing with messages where we don't know where the author is or who is on the other end of ola your honour's yes a counselor are you still there i'm not sure if you heard my question or not but i did get the question i'm sorry my audio and video cut out of my computer thirty seconds i did get the respond call that was observed by law enforcement you had coconspirators in their statements saying this is how we got ahold of your client at this phone number why isn't that sufficient enough to link your client to that phone number  they actually didn't know whether it was mr mears martina's that they were talking to or somebody else the two people that actually knew mr martin ramirez martina's in person solves are  identify the numbers belonging to the primo but again they didn't know who they're talking to on the other end aligned and so that's why it's our assertion that really the only piece of evidence linking mr mears martina's the phone proof here that needs to be reached to show that somebody can be linked to a certain account or phone number in that case it was a facebook account in this case it's a phone number but again there's no evidence in this case showing who is the owner of the phone no address of the account number or the count holder it is just that one ruse call what can't leave the standard of proof is i mean because i think this is a pre condition a fact question that's ordinarily determined by the trial sufficient to raise a jury question to a preponderance now is that not true or is it some other burr i would agree that the burden your honor it's just our assertion that the evidence in this case didn't meet that  just it was not shown in this case we're not arguing for any kind of higher burden in so it is your heard said earlier in the government argues there's other evidence that ma show is that the defendant was part of the conspiracy alleged in those messages or coconspirator statements as far as the radio messages go we assert that the defendant wasn't allegedly part of those the do any messages i think there's even less evidence that duwayne you messages that were part of the conspiracy really when it comes down the doing you message is the only evidence really showing those harmless error as we said in our apply brief we assert that they are not harmless that it wasn't harmless to admit these text messages the government's case really came down to these two maybe's evidence they cooperated testimony and the text messages and the admission the text messages not harmless because without them you have the uncorroborated cooperate us money you had the two guys the minnesota guys who not credible because in so again when it's just those corporate testimonies it's insufficient evidence to find mr mears martina's guilty of the crime and so that  coconspirators and then seven law enforcement agents primary case agent regarding the type are based investigation although there were other investigative techniques used and the number of officers on surveillance activity to help identify participants in the conspiracy and tie up certain yes t three wires it worked out intercepts to certain activities of those involved in an attempt to identify those individuals d the cases is kind of a three legged stool so to speak in the sense that you have the physical evidence of what was seized ultimately methamphetamine corroborating that there was a methamphetamine operation based in worthington in part for part of the methamphetamine brother defend it the sufficiency of the evidence is because of that we argue it is sufficient because of that three legged stool type of evidence that you have it both knew him as carlos there's testimony that drug traffickers use multiple nicknames then you have the northern part you have got to the head of the organization needed source for methamphetamine utilized to defend it was introduced to him by text message or or phone got the phone number used the phone number those trans those intercepts that were utilized were d consistent as testified to by the officer and b intercepted surveillance based operation that caught an individual the name of marino transporting north as well consistent with a gun is testimony and then we have some of it to know about the era saying that he went down and utilized a hand to hand transaction with that particular defendant in regards to that acquisition of approximately anywhere from a quarter pound to happen on a methamphetamine though the individuals down south talked more about alex's and quarter pounds individuals north talked about more about core programs to have pounds but they talked about repeated cound up with the defend it and in a methodology of having a transporter between the and then later people like as christian or salazar like is male marino was observed on surveillance and then discussed a number of other types of transactions by other transporters that were discussed by madonna and salv sierra the evidence was again multifaceted it's one of those types of things where you have to hear all the historical testimony in order to compare contrast it you almost have to hear those series of text messages and i guess recorded phone calls there's a couple of those to understand the context and that's where the court admitted those and in in this particular case so the district court did not err in overruling defend its motion for judgment of acquittal i'm going to turn to the text messages kind of the crux of the defendant's arguments in this particular case the argument by a party opponent finding by a preponderance of the evidence i know that was an inquiry by the court and funded by proprietors the evidence that the government had identified the defendant as the operator of that particular phone i think the court cited the ruse phone call but also cited other testimony by the cooperation other testimony in the case i would submit that that was not only other cooperate or particular gonna testifying about his communications this is what these messages  off and then ultimately making some payments the additional evidence that is more i guess in direct in nature is that the messages show the officers that there was going to be a agents found him in a got a fountain through is through his nd us beside about the era agents observed that individual go to the gun his house and then observe him track all the way back down to through a series of officers to dennison down and obtain methamphetamine down south so there was a variety of different ways in which the defendant was identified as the operator that phone routes call up and so the fact that he there was behavior consistent with the delivery of methamphetamine in context of some of those calls as testified to by madonna and to a certain degree by the case agent and it turned to the truth that that was principally one hundred level exhibits ten billion one  actually said that she was a coconspirator and source d for the defend it and then the agent testified as to the context actually two agents but primarily casey to testify as to the context of those particular intercepts and why they were intercepted including following or meeting at a location that they believed was a money drop and then later following her throughout northwest iowa to to identify her and then there's a nd set of phone calls or there after where it's a different phone number which the agent testified that he had determined that she was d the owner of or operator of by open source inquiries and again consistent code and then the testimony of the of the officers regarding not only the expertise of drug trafficking but of this being set to vittie that corroborated the actual intercepts it it's what you want officers to do when they get intercepts is to follow up and do some surveillance as to what activity is being talked about at least in code and we were able to verify that a couple occasions in this particular case and that corroborated the cold coke speer statements finally as i think came up earlier  questions to the defense even assuming and we're not conceding that here we think it was all properly admitted in the three ways in which the court did on the transcript i believe it for fifty five through about four  five if there were some exhibits that were erroneous the admitted the could be harmless error in the context of all the historical testimony about direct contact with the defendant by a number of people and in direct contact by others in his d drug trafficking activities in northwest iowa to southwest minnesota that concludes my comments the court in this court has some questions ok i guess not thank you very much white and  their men talks about the three legged stool i understand that there was physical evidence found in the case again there's really no ties of any physical evidence to mr mears martina's evidence against him was that