today but i will again the challenge to the admission of images in the pre teen folder the introduction of these not pornographic images was not intrinsic to the offense it was not proper for a for be evident and even if it was relevant should have been excluded under all four of three these images were found only during the rd forensic examination by the expert through the use of a special tool in the process of carving these images were found in the deleted  other circuits have admitted this kind of evidence you had different actions that indicated he hit manages which were generally the child pornography that the defendant had knowledge because in a different obvious location that defendant had some incorrect but the jury should be able to use those images for that another problem with this construction and even in the later for a for b instruction is that if the judge didn't say you can consider this if you find that mr factor had knowledge of these preteen images there's nothing about that in the limiting instruction given up the time and the flunk for a b instruction judge were told you can consider it if there were found on the device that really wasn't contested and even if it was purported to be to prove knowledge one be helpful to the jury in that regard also there is testimony that there was over four hundred dollars images which is incredibly prejudicial and the government repeated that fact during closing on this summary because it would be impractical to put on the underlying data it doesn't have to be impossible but it just has to be impractical and it's because of that it's treated as substantive evidence here the government is trying to rely on this rule not because it was impractical but because they wanted to avoid playing the videos for the jury and these are the woman us documents these are thirty seven dollars videos generally what about a bit wrong the longest was twenty minutes and the government only introduced six of these videos so it's not the circumstance where we generally have like a very complex financial crime a big conspiracy what's necessary to get a summary and because the jury just can't take in that much data the fact of what is contained in the video also does nothing to establish knowledge the question is whether he knew their honest devices or he knew that they were being transported to other people when it's actually contained within that it doesn't help the jury determine if he knew about these deleted files and if he knew that he was sharing with other people but no further questions over serve the remainder of my time for about instruction said members of the jury this is a contemporaneous obstruction instruction these particular exhibits are not child pornography the government's not seeking a conviction on counts twelve or three based on them they are offered to show the defendant's interest in young s exact language the court found the stories demonstrate defendant's interest and predisposition to possess child pornography predisposition is another word for propensity the court vend instructed the jury it could consider those stories to prove the defendant's quote inherent tendency to commit the acts charged in the indictment that's another phrase for propensity sexual interest in children is not the same at city and i think of variety of courts of appeals have recognized  sexual interest in children can be permissible motive evidence motive because of course a permissible purpose under rule for for be the reason the defendant was downloading collecting and possessing child pornography was because he had a sexual interest in children that was his motive that's highly relevant when the only dispute at trial was whether he knew what was on his phone or whether it was there by accident or by mistake and so i would  would quibble with the notion that a sexual interest in children equals perhaps city i don't know of courts of appeals who have reached that conclusion in fact i think this sort of evidence is routinely admitted in these types of cases we cited the  judge gave the pattern model for all four b instruction the final jury instructions which this court has repeatedly held handle the issue of unfair present prejudice and cure any unfair prejudice and so i think you're concerned that the court didn't give the jury enough guidance the court did in the final jury instructions which of course the juries presume to follow but i want to go back to judge koby your question about propensity i think perhaps the  were for being knowledge clearly a permissible purpose and this child erotica tended to show the defendant's knowledge in multiple ways so st of all he's got child pornography on his phone and then he also has child ms quick refer to there are over four hundred images well it is likely that if someone has four hundred photos saved on an s d card that is inserted into his phone she knows that he has four hundred photos on his phone most people do not have hundreds of photographs on their phone they don't know about and it was also relevant to knowledge because the government's expert testified that it was likely that the user of that phone put those images on that s d card intentionally and chose to put them there that testimony is very clear in the record it's on page two hundred and fifty four to fifty five i believe that this is not the default path where images would go if they were downloaded they would normally be saved on the phone they had to be to be saved on the s d card either because the user change the settings or move those files one by one so i think under any given or any of those reasons this was proper for a for b evidence to prove knowledge and the court properly admitted it on that basis as for the nd issue which is the charts so as miss quick noted two groups of charges that are being challenged here i think the overarching point is that the district court has a very broad discretion about whether to admit summary charge and reversal is only proper if those charts are so unfair that reversal is required and nothing close to that is true here so there's a the initial charge government exhibit six which is a summary and there was no challenge to the accuracy of the summary there was a huge say objection which was obviously not correctly taken there was never a challenge at trial about whether the summary was accurate and the summary does not contain argument or legal conclusions it contains factual descriptions about what's in these videos and the court can review the summary to confirm that but in any case the government actually admitted and played portions  that show adult men sexually assaulting children and so even if there were some sort of an error which i think would have to be plain error given that there was no challenge to its offer under a one thousand and six i don't see how any error could have been prejudicial here should we played some videos and we offered an accurate properly authenticated summary of other videos so that we did not play the jury many many minutes of child pornography videos but i assure this court if there's a way summarized evidence that had previously been admitted into the record they summarize testimony from two different witnesses and consolidated evidence from multiple exhibits the witnesses whose testimony was summarized examined those summaries on the witness stand and testified that they were accurate there was no objection to their accuracy during trial all of the evidence that was related in those summaries was separately admitted into evidence and so there is another example where the district court  very broad discretion about whether to admit those a substantive evidence and the court properly did so here the rd issue is relates to the for child pornography videos that the defendant challenges and the simple that he was charged with transporting and receiving and possessing in a child pornography the child pornography the defendant is charged with is relevant now it is true that those videos were not found on the defendant's phone because he wiped his phone and deleted that content shortly before the search warrant was executed but the evidence at trial conclusively showed that they were on his phone at the times charged in the indictment and we've got evidence in great detail in our brief and i'm not going to review it with the court unless you have questions but for each video we showed that those videos were on the phone at the times in the indictment the defendant  and it was therefore proper for the court to admit that they were part of the crimes charged unless the court has any questions we would out of the court to affirm the defendant's conviction thank you very much of evidence tell the church that an element of the offense is matt and then act like it's doing the defendant a favor by doing so generally whether video involves minors that's something that involves generally what they'll bring in a someone from the national foresman officer rushed to video make a judgment call and say that's a minor not introduce that video to the jury to allow them to make that decision on their own and then say well this is us actually doing something beneficial for you because we're true and preventing any potential backlash from having a jury just hate them for making them watch all of these videos but allowing the prosecutor to get an emotional impact and tell the jury now would be rest assured we found a videos and they are all horrific but we're not going to admit them and you don't need to look at them trying to the introduction of the preteen images the government's argument on motive is basically a rehashing of what this court rejected and  led the mother to go and find images of child pornography in bopping that stepdaughter government tried the same argument well it shows the fact that he was sexually abusing his daughter indicates that he had interest in her and that he knowingly court should do so here and that the government also points to the standard for for be instruction and we're not arguing instructional air and that's not plane air because we're not i doing instructional air but it goes into harmless air which is the received a prisoner these images what the instruction if it was for the purpose that the government where would it would say if you find that the defendant had knowledge of these images on the s d card it can show knowledge of the child  could be an automatic setting what any images automatically saved to an s d card but even still it's the same process as the child pornography it doesn't provide any additional insight to how to defend it if the defendant