amounts and colors the other individual has gone there in this together is a conspiracy and he says he was not going to have an opportunity who  and you know sort of like it's gone and so is the the ability in this case to defend for instance to say the dog food is a different brand or has a different wrapper or the colors are the same colors or anything that would have at least made a reasonable argument believe it has some application here we have a situation here where only one person testified for mr chancellor he did anything and that was the one person said he unloaded the marijuana and he was heavily impeached because he had never identified  then they go lardo takes the fifth and doesn't testify yet the government's allowed to argue very persuasively that the phone number on the business card was there because he was a member of the conspiracy and was rec instruction the jury instruction with respect to the ever heard of a jury instruction say the juries can presume yes that's a valid jury instruction well there's begun to protect the marijuana well one of the interesting things in this case is that the sentencing court was not the trial court this was a visiting judge retry the case judge jones was a sense here so he didn't and there's nothing the record says the court under booker can now look at all the thirty five fifty three areas in addition to the guidelines and therefore he for the taking into account this man's long work history his lack of any prior criminal record in analyzing whether it was over  just touch on one subject that was brought up by the fans council and that is that the at the time of the trial if you look at the seal decoration that was presented at the time of the motion to dismiss the reason that the  defense wanted that marijuana was not to compare the colors nor the size nor the bags it was too it was to try and show or to demonstrate that the thirty three hundred pounds of marijuana will not fit in this gentleman's pickup truck and so it was going to be a situation where they were going that they needed the marijuana in order to substantiate the fact that he didn't he call of the liver all of it on march the twenty ninth well in fact we agreed that i mean you read the act that the the what the second the instruction was the jury may presume the guns that have to that's a permissive instruction the evidence would have been favorable to the defendant it's not it's not instruction  presumption instruction that runs in favor of the government runs in favor of the defense and so that makes it if the defense doesn't like they have a presumption in their favor that's their business but i suggest that they do because they have more power than sanction or anything and it is one of the the three methods of dealing with this kind of a situation the had the defense in their supplemental memorandum asked for it or suggested it  and so it it appears that if he asked for it and he and he got we asked for maybe not the same wording but he got what he asked for but he stuck with it and it's an invited there and he doesn't need to be reviewed if it n well here the president of any was was minimal and the reason is that that we can see the defense theory that is that the that the pickup truck that he was driving could not have carried the full thirty three hundred pounds and that's the way we argued we didn't say that he carried the whole world over to the stash house and our yak but there was overwhelming evidence that he was involved in this conspiracy and under greying if you have a if you have never involved himself in the marsh transaction he only involve himself in the in the november transaction that's the only thing we used a card for mr jan was never involved with the fact that the telephone number on it had nothing to do with cha whatsoever so there was no reason to worry about the card as far as bruce concerned marketa statement only talk about itself and only talked about the november transaction he denied any jury is perfectly capable of doing now regard to the the sentencing recently at the first of all off the reason that there was a difference or even though he went to trial after trial began to cooperate and his sentence was adjusted as a result of his cooperation so everybody bargain their way out of the gun handsomely except for this defendant and so he was struck with and there's no question of the marijuana that night but the agents also observed him doing things and there on site with his pickup truck and not only that but that same pickup truck if you recall was seen on prior occasions making runs back and forth months when they don't the court does not give him a role reduction even though there's no evidence he did anything except arrive there and unload some marijuana which is in the case notes for the for the guidelines so we have a situation where i crime is doing fourteen years with no real prior record where the most that anyone else did was one hundred twenty months and that was a guy who also could not get safety valve and his guideline range were sixty three to seventy