sufficient evidence that at the time of distribution in august th team mr ruiz knew that the video being downloaded by the homeland security agent peter and it essentially downloaded the video simultaneously or moments after mr rhys downloaded the video himself there is no evidence at all concerning  unallocated portion of the thumb drive so then that then that means that you moved it over to the on drive at least in the me that there is evidence from which the jury could find that he did move it yes sure but there is no evidence suggesting that the to his computer and then had to be downloaded but even if so we have no evidence at all that mysteries ever open the video before it was to lead but yes it is your position counsel that he has to have open it seems to me a jury here you know given the name of the bit the and given all of the other evidence that the jury heard it seems to me a jury could early easily conclude that he knew what he was downloading when he downloaded it so i see your point that that you know and and that is because the evidence that was presented to the jury concerned searches that were conducted by mr ray's many months after the download at issue in count one there was no evidence at all do you do you agree that he knew better grouping in the name i do not agree with that your honor there is no evidence that he that he knew the name of the video the video on was found the government and stories have been disappearing in the last few days about whether there is evidence of how the torrent came in but we don't know what that torrent was named that or it could have been named you know all in the family we just don't know  d in judgment i go back to your your point we're not arguing that this was a surprise that this would suggest that mr ruiz didn't look for child pornography but the evidence only addresses twenty certainty and with that supported defendants convictions the defendant's own statements that at the time the search warrants were executed he had been downloading child pornography for at least a year prior to the execution of the search warrants supports a reasonable inference that at that time he distributed the real low live video he had been a consumer of child pornography for at least three months bookmarks for child pornography found on his computer that date to six months prior to the distribution of the reload video support that is well additionally the title of the real low of video was apparent to him the defendant acknowledged that when using the bit tor last year or two he had looked at trial pornography and knew it was child pornography because of the title additionally agent hex all testified that the torrent came in as one file there was  as one file there was testimony at trial as to how the bit torrent network works that each image is assigned a hash id or a hash value and it each item is unique and so from that under a sufficiency of the evidence considering the facts in the light most favorable to the government there certainly was enough evidence that he knew the name there was evidence that the name lolo and lo are common in child pornography circles and that is that for a one in four or three in the record and we have his statements as to timing and i want to point out that during that interview at one point the agent had suggested that he had been downloading child pornography for four years and the defendant pushed back and he said no i've seen the couple times over the years over the last year or two so he narrowed the scope of that and that statement that he had been doing it for a th teen found on defend his computer that is six months prior to the distribution of the reload video that these facts support that downloading it and this three beating it that you knew what he was downloading it was not like that is the st time that he downloaded chopped off that is correct your honor i don't think that the facts presented here support the idea that that's a reasonable inference here that this was the st time he downloaded child pornography and the reason for that is his own statement about when he began downloading child pornography the bookmarks again that's at five hundred and sixty two and five sixty three that that date to six months prior to the distribution and the fact that low low and real low are common child pornography terms he defended kids you know basically seems to me like it's built into the system sort of a quid pro quo you open up yours and other people share too so it's not clear to me that the statement in hernandez that peer to peer networks do not enough themselves  the evidence that was found months later it seemed that our analysis was that hernandez didn't apply here under these facts we're not saying that it applies to all bit to was i don't know if that used were pretty but there was definitely exchange going on with what was going on here so if you know it seems you're just sending it back based on the fact that peer to peer networks don't end it up themselves i get that but that the windows was reinstalled on the computer and there was testimony that when that happens things may change and can change big piece the agent testified  that windows reinstallation can change artifacts or may change them but not necessarily that they did and that's for nineteen and then at year four hundred and forty seven the agent testified that there was a record but if i create a document in two thousand and sixteen and i move it to a thumb drive in two thousand and twenty i don't think that changes the date and that's the nature of the testimony is that there was there was evidence that there were things on that  thumb drive connected that the images st go to the desktop and for them to have been found on the thumb drive indicates that they were moved to that down drive and then it categorized onto it on the thumb drive and then to lea supports that he possessed it on or about that date and additionally i think those facts take it out of the flyer unallocated space decision because in flyer this court said that  are there but i think there is evidence that he has extensive knowledge of the bit torrent network and how his computer files work and i think the fact that it may be difficult for him to access them she d there was not to my knowledge evidence of that and that i guess would be my final point i just the fact that it might have been difficult for him to retrieve them does not impact the analysis here he knew that it was deleted unlike flyer who said he only shared them and downloaded and shared and didn't delete we know here from this defendant's habits that he did delete them and so they have well over time that there is sufficient evidence as to count days before of course he deleted out of that i don't think you're arguing that the possessed them within the meeting because a flier i don't think you're arguing that you possess them once you don't need a dom but that the evidence was because he transferred over there was a period of time when he transferred he possessed them as images that he put on and they weren't deleted repossess them as the leader the materials he possessed them as images because we know from the testimony that the images download to the desktop and for the images to ever end up on the thumb drive and then to be deleted on the thumb drive they have to have been moved over i don't know if you don't delete them to the song like they're somewhere else and then you delete them drive after being moved and and so yes that is the government's argument they were live images they were images he moved them to the thumb drive and then he later deleted them from the thumb drive and that occurred on  about the date charts in the indictment we additionally fit that flyer is not it is not this is not in the realm of flyer but i won't go into that again because i am over time and i will just say there is sufficient evidence as we just discussed with count two that he possessed them on or about the date charges in the indictment and as to count one that he had been a consumer of child pornography for thirty eight to six months prior to the time he distributed the real olivia he admitted and sixteen it does not in any way support a finding by a reasonable juror beyond a reasonable doubt that he did in fact know it which is what the law requires so once again the government is  with the jury is is inundating the court with evidence of propensity evidence which is as we know we cited the dillingham case from the eastern district of virginia which we would encourage the court to to look at very closely this is pure propensity evidence and it is improper and then with regard to count two your honor the only evidence that we have from the record is that the argued that it has to be within a reasonable time and will we have no time frame for which a jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that he was in possession of those images on or near may nd twenty seven so for those reasons of you think the government has charged him with and that goes to questions perhaps some jeopardy and ability to present a defense here the government has had simply said well about that time that they didn't present any evidence to submit we've got we've got cases council th