reliability and again that brings us back to the improper to all instruction because contrary to what the is for court hell that's really only appropriate when at least part of the way is true requires a fear of which is to say if you are going to have when you do a role instruction is appropriate when there is truly expert testimony as part of the of the witnesses testimony part of what the  morning your honour's these court david chow on behalf of the united states the court should the convictions and the sentence for defendant should be affirmed subject to the corrections of three of the conditions of supervised release i'd like to start  addressing the issues that the court has been addressing and then if the court has any questions i'd be happy to follow up on other issues i'd like to turn st to the question of the admission of the lay d testimony by a knock you know in claiborn the district court should not plainly error d by admitting this testimony both witness is observed to dispute is under conditions comparable to and closer in time to the event to the crime in question and that  surveillance video and on at least four occasions watched surveillance video of of defendant conducting bank transactions on his own account during those contacts she was able to see the defendant walk up to the  up to the a t m and also under different lighting conditions and that was valuable to the jury because the surveillance photographs similarly involve those types of variables in addition to that this for knock you are also  situation yes that would be even better but i would submit that there was nothing improper with the admission of miss knockers testimony here she did have sufficient contact with the defendant based on her own observations and that says that's not your hours testimony was insufficient was based on insufficient context as a matter of law with respect to how the journey i looked at the surveillance standing out when she it told that she testified to the jury that she looked at both the surveillance video of the suspect committing the frogs and transactions and she also viewed surveillance video of of the defendant conducting legitimate transactions on his own account and that based on those those comparing those surveillance videos as well as the photographs that were presented to the jury she concluded that that it appeared to be the same person and that you then informed that informed the postal and notably the defendant on that day was wearing the same rams baseball cap driving the same car with the same green shirt in his back seat and again that is helpful to the jury because those are the factors that they would to have looked at for the surveillance photos d as well so on top of that inspector claiborne also not only arrested the defendant but also transported him and conducted a post arrest interview with him at the at the defendant but the other evidence of defendants of that in the lived in that room and which leads me to the other point your honor which is that even if this court were to conclude that there was some error in terms of the late testimony this court has a assurance that that did not materially affect the verdict because of two things st of all the jury the record shows the jury exercised its independent judgment with respect to identify the defendant as the culprit st of  jury sent a note specifically asking for photos of the defendant conducting business on his account and then within three hours of that note of of receiving the answer to that note the jury returned its verdict and it returned a split verdict it convicted on five coun and then it hung or acquitted on three counts and by defendant's own admission the three counts on which the jury hung or acquitted or the counts in which the surveillance photographs depicted the face of the suspect being blurry or d or obstructed and so what that shows what that tells this court is that the jury took it upon itself to look at the photos take it and compare them to this surveillance photographs and ultimately made its own decision as to whether or not defendant was the person in the surveillance photographs insurer and the three records that were admitted as business records in that case were essentially printouts of summaries of the claims of earnest claims that were in dispute what happened in that case was that you have all says that printouts from a compiled database for the purpose of litigation are acceptable as long as the compiled database was recorded and kept in the ordinary course of business but going back to the facts and you paul in litigation there necessarily needs to be some sort of subjective culling otherwise all your otherwise there is no way to reduce the massive database to a printout so i would submit your honor that you helped fill governs the the court's analysis in this case and that you hope teaches that as long as the underlying database was recorded and kept in the ordinary course of business then the printouts from that database are similarly are similarly admissible as business records motions and so for the government's position is that for both those reasons this issue was not preserved and it should be reviewed for plane air even if this court were to find that there was some error statements combined with the surveillance photographs combined with the other evidence in this case are more than sufficient for the jury to reach the same conclusion i see that i am out of time so  have a question if i may ask do you were can see that we should remain and with respect to the supervised release conditions because of the difference between the oral statement and the written provisions i do not your honor i respectfully disagree with my colleague's reading of the peg case the peg case was a situation of vagueness where this court would have had to essentially rewrite the terms and that situation i would agree that  man is appropriate however in this case the difference is that the government has conceded in this the differences can be easily remedied by simply striking language and that situation this court is that it's proper for this court  can get around back as long as you have so called lay witness testify about photo comparisons and then destroy the photos or then destroy the video and i just don't think that that's a permissible a wise permissible holding in regards to the way that this court was will a testimony or expert testimony certainly if an expert who tried to do this and said well i can't give you my underlying data that i did mark use think that helps us i think the fact that they struggled with the identity issue and did not convict on all counts helps because what that tells us is that that all this improper to me put fungus scale on the reasonable doubt scale the government's favor so and borderline issues of identity the government got the benefit of the doubt by having a proper lay testimony be having had a properly labeled as the supervised release you heard opposing counsel do we have the power to make those deletions here or do we should be remained for the district court to do it i think the cour