if it please the court i am here representing willie mark on appeal this morning and adopt and incorporate the opening and replied briefs and what i'm asking this court to look at on behalf of mr m is the lack of evidence to support a very clear guilt for knowingly and intentionally attempting to manufacture methamphetamine and for knowing and intentionally created a substantial risk of harm to human life and will be free because i think that the documents that against the better it clearly set out the facts in this ca there is no dispute that there was a fire in the apartment building where mr mark decided there is no dispute whatsoever that mr mark was ultimately treated however it is not necessarily connected to by virtue of the evidence he was treated for burns on the back of his hand of government law has you believe that because fourteen witnesses testified that there is sufficient evidence to support this  apartment i guess i have difficulty seeing why that isn't at least a very strong circumstantial evidence that he was attempting to manufacture math on the date of march thirtieth two thousand and two there is no evidence that connects those specific items with the trace residue to a specific point in time and that is found the items were found at the time of the fire and carry me investigation afterwards that there was testimony that the items could have been there for over a year there was testimony that there were latent fingerprints not only belon crashing on the floor you also have a clash fire and you have a fire department investigator saying that it doesn't know what caused the fire you also have facts from which you could draw reasonable inferences that it was not the result of the math an attempt a proposition is that are the question put to us is it possible to grow reasonable inferences from the evidence that points to a different result a man like with judge gruber's posed the problem here is that that's not a mission today and it may well be in the case of the jury could have heard that same evidence he said but that's not what it said and the question put to us is whether or not any rational trier of fact that have reached that result there was that result one that simply think that it was a reasonable inference for them to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that based on the fact that there was a man attempted mat manufacturing going on one of the facts t out so we very clearly in one i'd like to reserve two minutes if i could talk quickly enough the testimony regarding the coleman camp and the fire forensic expert testified that that if there on to impossible to if there was an explosion during a cook to put the can back down and put the lid back on top of that and have it remain upright and there was no evidence whatsoever as in a typical crook of net outside after which her leg ever in may i please reserve the next minute twenty four seconds yes thank you  and they talk about a camp bank robberies and while they provide guidance to the court as to that you elements that need to be proven and to specific fine or definitions of substantial step was not included within the materials where the flammable materials as well as the cutting agent the most common cutting agent to make methamphetamine he  there was a flash fire there was testimony presented of the methamphetamine process of how methamphetamine is made and how he is used to make methamphetamine that was the flask fire at four o'clock in the morning opine that the fire was caused by the unintentional ignition of flammable gases the scene of the fire according to not only fire investigators but slavin vesta gaiters had all phosphorus which are ingredients of methamphetamine it also had burn marks on it and what appeared to be human skin burned human skin on the t shirt the defendant was observed fleeing the apartment shortly after neighbors had heard or had noticed that the fire was coming from the window of the defendant did not return to the apartment endless fact of arrested three days later at a should look to precedent united states versus taylor was a case where a defendant was convicted of the attempted manufacture of amphetamines what happened was the defendant had accumulated all the materials had inquired about equipment to manufacture the amphetamines and had made some statements sufficiency of the evidence challenge and in fairness the case the at camp the conviction was ultimately overturned reversed due to an adequate jury instruction but concerning th united states theory of the case was that this was that this fire curtis in the process of manufacturing methamphetamine that fire occurred in a residential four plex type of apartment methamphetamine where it was done at the time it was done with other people innocent persons present in the same i believe wooden apartment dwelling did in fact create or  absolutely just and then our number one and finally number two also the reason this case is so critical is that exposed into a ten year enhancement with a thirty one thousand dollars restitution and finally in