please the court i'd like to reserve three minutes of my time for rebuttal of the may and i would also like to introduce of the court to my of section one b one point three but squarely squarely the district courts must consider whether a defendant's conduct to satisfy the guidelines definition of the cross referenced offense here which she was doing in whatever secure was doing and that she keir intended to murder and that it was foreseeable to your client that sheikh here  miss according to miss anderson's testimony that miss it was concerned about this cadillac a better bed there was there was nothing sacred about the solomon harris murder  without yes you to clarify in this case is it your contention that the lower court considered all of the evidence found that miss andersen clearly voluntarily was a part of an annoying part of the conspiracy and that page id seventy eight and seventy nine and the court find that do what should we say if we agree with you about this premeditation and intent situation that general perhaps for see ability is not sufficient  table i guess my question is that let's leave aside the second question of her role and then just on the question of deliberation tim if it good morning my name is maintenance and i represent the united states is to judge moore's comment at the united states summits that the standard would be that miss anderson had to agree to things into account should have foreseen this possibility is quite different for maybe part of that is quite different from intending that the murder take place as a matter she why why isn't it arguable that the defendant that means jury and for being harassed by suki here but not necessarily from being murdered  i mean it's good to hear that it's clear that anderson the defendant here was in coots could stay here should here to do something to duran because earlier conversation between defendant anderson and during and anderson going to sheikh here and telling him about this and then participating in this driving misadventure that results in durant's being killed by sheikh here but the question that i'm or otherwise do the awful things that he is alleged to have done in the record in this case the united states but smith as a legal standard it's per se ability that she would have to have she'd have to be facilitating that it would be forseeable that this could occur but it would be the legal standard the united states mitt's however factual basis in this particular case the killing of someone harris which was in september of one thousand nine hundred ninety five yesterday and then is not required only a landing of that that it was foreseeable as a or possible or probable instead of intent to murder is the standard and i don't see those as being the same standard either here just simple foreseeability is the standard or deliberation intent to kill which is a hard standard to meet is the standard which is if you're saying you're saying never had the intent to kill definitively right what judge meredith talk about one of those but but the ability that it could occur how does that meet the per the premeditated standard now if you if you say that she it was forseeable that it would occur best different but the first degree factual knowledge there's no evidence that she knew that the here intended to murder her there's no evidence he did in fact but she won in the car at the time and there i don't see what the evidence is that she knew he intended to murder the woman and that she shared in the end to him and therefore for still it aided the murder in the sense of knowing that's what was going to happen she had car she did well but ignores it as true so it's going to also fall or it was forseeable that the murderer here would want to have a conversation with the woman about not snitching on him about his activities i mean there are a lot of things that could have occurred other than murder if you follow me necessary only in the mire and anderson that the victim was going to be murdered the idea and the possibility was that there would be a conversation about the if a new earth the united states would submit if an individual knows that one of two outcomes may occur when we go to this location she may get murdered or she may get beat up it is still a factual knowledge i understand that this person may be murdered at this location using your injuries an area of judgment or under your theory any time somebody knows that there could be a fight they would they would be potentially liable for murder if the person if that person is actually killed not for a fight judge moore i don't believe so what the united states is attempting been a while you're on and i did sit there to try and assist in the trial was one of the assistants on the trial was not the lead but so there factual questions here but there's also the underlying legal standard issue which of course is something that we're particularly interested in and your opponent said when i was discussing with him and the milton case and trying to say that milton was so this is what is campbell do here your honor at this moment i'm drawing a blank on so so it seems to me that that the legal issues in just knowing whether this is right as a statement of what the legal issue is the legal issue is whether when we're looking at the fact that we have the relevant conduct provision in the sentencing guidelines and one b one point three whether it's enough as a matter of law for a defendant anderson to see that it's foreseeable that the murder could take place and for defendant sorry for she keir to be the one who plus the foreseeability to this defendant current trial and another question that i have is given the lack of explanation from the district judge here and the total reliance on the pre sentence report and the difficulty that we've had in figuring out what are the facts here should there not be remained so that the district judge can actually explicitly apply whatever we say is the legal standard to the within the brief went to the transcript to the pages that supported those specific paragraphs within the pre sentence report so united states admits that the district court did make a factual findings in adopting those and i don't know that in the standard that it would be report though seems to think that simple foreseeability that may happen is sufficient but the district also found not only was it for anderson but that she had factual knowledge to it that factual knowledge can be drawn from the circumstances only murder itself the united states or its forseeable and says that he's relying on the pre sentence report which doesn't does not specifically say intent that she had to have the intent to murder i believe that is c this goes back and we think the standard is one of requiring him to have malice deliberation and cetera on the part of anderson that the perpetrators intent is not sufficient in assert we say the standard is that foreseeability is not sufficient and that she's got the intent to murder under the federal death penalty statute the federal statute  or and the district court as well she's was foreseeable but she didn't intended what would be then the result in this case the deadline would lower i'd do not recall when the case came back i don't know if you he would still be there but obviously but he is still handling it took seventeen years to get her sentence eben pang who was the last defendant to be disposed of in the case of actor and  pain was ultimately found by judge nixon to be incompetent to assist his counsel during the course of trial not incompetent at the time of the actual murder incompetency of the at the time of her unable to know right from wrong but incompetent to assist in his counsel to assist is counsel his defense so eben has nailed her mr paine has now been committed to the bureau of prisons and remains in their custody for psychological treatment until if he's ever found to be able to function correctly in society mentally so that result did not occur until was hoping for leniency from the court because she had voluntarily test the us didn't want her to be so until after all this was over is that is that i believe that the united states bit my memory is that miss anderson did not want to be sentenced until it was over so that she would have the opportunity the united states probably agreed you know the police there were prior to miss anderson sensing there were a couple also it's my memory after mr