jury form that also required them again to decide whether or not baxter knew that he was conspiring to distribute the controlled substance and they made that finding they checked the box guilty and that finding is entitled to  be that a drug conspirator also who is involved with helping get hundreds of thousands of dollars in drug proceeds is just as guilty he it was never claxton's role to be in charge of the drugs so why would you  there's no drugs involved there are you know there are a few things that would very much indicate that he knew that there were drugs and well first off he was not just a mule this is a man who was in charge repeatedly getting hundreds of thousands of dollars from one conspirator the main guy in north carolina to the main guy here in the virgin islands hundreds of thousand dollars on each event sure but the question isn't did he know he was doing something illegal but that he no he what he the illegal thing he was doing was being put that kind of money in the hands of someone who's not part of their circle he didn't do this just once or twice maybe you could be an unwitting part we're talking about one hundred ninety thousand dollars an extra council but but i think it's just short pointed out clearly something smells here but but we need to look at the evidence that i guess can show us that he has some knowledge as to drugs in particular that's right and some other coffee that's right and there are a few more things again we're not we can the jury can reasonable inferences and one of the inferences is that you would have a million dollars in the hands of a guy time and again one hundred ninety thousand dollars if you don't have him is part of your inner circle also we have he has a direct and close relationship with one of the managers of this conspiracy we have this fellow isaac glanton who is the pop guy in north carolina and why he is here you see your best evidence in this case he is an important piece of the i don't believe that is a distinction what happened in korea is the coconspirator is on the stand and he is testifying that his role boreas role is to distribute is to unload these drugs it's not that it's taken that was made in the course of the conspiracy he's on the stand testifying and this court credited that it said that when a coconspirator testifies about a role that the defendant is playing we can't impute knowledge to the defen that it's fair for a jury to infer that the defendant also knows what his role is if the coconspirator is describing what was the what was the statement read the statement and were berea was the to the coconspirators on the stand and government is asking questions of him and he said what is boreas role moreas role was to unload the drugs but wasn't that wasn't that a statement about something that was said at the time in other words i thought the facts a misunderstanding about what's being said here i don't believe that is the distinction i don't believe that this court relied on the fact that the idea with that it was that he was testifying that that was something that was said at the time and back judge fisher very specifically noted that there was no testimony from my asking whether we've distinguished red face before i'm asking whether that makes a difference i don't think it makes a difference because i also don't think that's what happened in korea i don't think that there was testimony at that that at the time there was conversations about that being his role i think he's on the stand and i think it's the same that we have here we have a coconspirator who's on the stand who's saying i am a manager of this organization and a lot of witnesses were talking about this drug operation as an organization with the tenants and managers and different levels of people in it and we have isaac on the stand and he's saying i'm a manager of this organization claxton was a member of this organization it was his job to retrieve the couriers get him to mark the other head of the organization here what shows the object of conspiracy drugs and not also the book which it is so that he has a gun a relationship with the head of the drug organization this was a drug organization clearly that he did make the chart but the chart you know who knows how you can bet chart looked at a lot of people and didn't have a lot of guys in the middle in the chart and also again not some were the jury to decide he's on the stand saying he's a member of my organization i  the jury can decide whether you like to mock the chart that was for the jury result the jury found who was involved with drugs we also have on the farm there's a conversation he's a member of the organization organization i success and comes there ten some knowledge of the drugs a jury has to be able to infer that he knew he was involved in drugs and not stolen goods or something else and a gun we think that there's evidence in this record we have the coconspirator who saying he's on my team he's helping me distribute he quality you can build a case brick by brick circumstantial evidence and also we have evidence that he again i don't think you can underestimate that he is a close relationship with an ongoing member of this conspiracy one of the fact well what what the conspirator testified is we're going to atlantic city i got in trouble with nine keys he's talking about it as nine kilograms of cocaine again he knows he's talking to there he's brought him in his inner circle he's saying he's on my team there in atlantic city trying to retire a drug debt to another member of the conspiracy the closeness of the relationship yet another way that you can infer knowledge that he's not being assume that he was on the far means he was there when drugs were being discussed that's that's something we have that has to be for because there's no direct evidence correct and you don't require over some of those bags it's a fair inference and the inference that he knew that they had there was one hundred ninety thousand dollars but as you say the key point is this you know that's about stolen drugs or not and again you can fairly infer why the head of a guy that trusted member of an organisation it's time and again playing an important role that he knows what he's a part of  i think that the issue that the court will need to decide today is really hell much in evidence does it take to be substantial enough to support the jury's verdict in this and have a specific perspective on the evidence right or we have to we have to view this in the light that's most favorable to the government because they won the birthright that's correct so if we draw every reasonable inference in their favor and look at it in the light most favorable to them yes what is wrong with the government's assertion that nobody gives somebody control over hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars over and over and over again unless that person has more than just a notion that they're doing something wrong they know they're involved in running money for the growth and they're going with that as an knowing that well there and participating knowingly in that in that aspect of a conspiracy either he will spend time here assertion is mr i'm trying to get to speak to their assertion is there are there is a link this isn't a one off this is many many many many times over and if somebody said doing something many many many kinds over it is fair to assume son of inference on an inference it's fair to assume that they are a nothing on the inside to know it's rough because you don't give somebody access and control over that kind of money on a repeated basis without them being far enough inside the door that they at least know this is about drugs that's the argument i understand them to be making and why is that something it particularly from the perspective of every favorable view of the government you give them is is an adequate basis on which to  liver the fact that he was given money and let's assume that all of these suitcases had one hundred ninety thousand dollars in money and that he repeatedly picked up women who were obviously trusted to carry this money doesn't explain that this morning was the result of selling five kilograms or more of cocaine importing it from outside the u s virgin islands and sending it to the states and returning this as the proceeds of the drug sale there isn't there isn't any link to the to the drug part of it unless we look to some other that is they say those other cases where you said you know it's not enough to just be there when the bad stuff is happening those are cases where somebody is a multiple repeat player that the very fact that there are multiple repeat player raises an inference that they are not been the no that you you can say they knew it was drugs because they're in the nothing there may not be an inner inner circle but they're close enough to their circle to know so i guess that's the question i'm trying to ask perhaps in our family what's wrong with the argument that being a multiple repeat player in itself raises an inference of knowledge i just don't see it including the specific type of knowledge that's required to knowingly agreed to be part of the conspiracy whether he did it five times or ten times or twenty times he is doing the same act of going to the airport retrieving women taking them to their hotels sometimes taking their bag to somebody sometimes not and but if you have testimony i think that this is specifically says he's part of the organization he's out on the farm where we talk about drug dealing be illegal drug trade right i don't know what he means he says talk drug activities he doesn't say well it's a fair inference he's talking about illegal target et every other co defendants in this case there there was a specific link to knowledge of drugs whether they were mules couriers both kept in bringing a shipment in from poland in each instance there was something connecting the person with drugs and knowledge of drugs so that so there's nothing isaac says claxton is on the farm over and over again and the farm is where we go to fight and talk about drug a that he said specifically though that his role is retrieving the women who are carrying drug proceeds that i informed him about or that he knows of balco and that he's giving taking that money to work he doesn't even in his testimony about claxton you know he describes how he himself puts this money in the bags and setter in the states and sends it with the having lunch i mean if we took a trip by trip i don't know whether you want me to address the actual evidence that was in or just mr isaacs global reference that that this was did but when the when the women testified in many instances it was really not what he did and he was he was described by isaac as sort of a backup person he's who he would call claxton if he couldn't reach somebody else to do to pick up not something you would someone to do on a repeated basis without them having some knowledge of conspiracy including the object of it i think there was one instance where he could bag from this cox or he kept the bag and he got repeated later but in the other instances the bag was either given to somebody by the side of the road or by a pet shop war taken by somebody else i can't you know deny what the facts were that were brought out and what the evidence was that was pried out i can point simply to what i would call the absence of evidence in terms of him being i mean he wasn't compensated there's no evidence of that he will definitely was he was compensating other people he was handing out thousand dollars for these role he plays it repeatedly he's at the farm at the feet chalk places where there's testimony that the drug activities openly discuss he's a company's isaac on a trip where he is told this is the help me retire a drug  owe to another person who happens to be you know the person in the conspiracy there are these things going on including isaac statement flat out class that he's part of you're going to zation you put those things together and can it really be said that there's no rational sure that would look at those things and say yes he knew it was drugs he knew it was a drug conspiracy because that's the question the right you have to say to agree with what the district court did here you have to say it's utterly irrational for a human being will can get back to say yeah he knew it was drugs that are standard i i think given the line of cases is from this circuit i do think that there's a paucity of evidence as judge gomez said and i just would like to address it to the red light flashing on the part about the gambling because the testimony was almost at one of our many times of coming for sentencing was that he didn't really care if its mother went with him it was gambling it was a totally different thing and it wasn't anything that anybody was charged with just very quickly the evidence about the gambling and to retire the drug that was admitted in evidence even if it was improperly admitted i think you're right judge jordan it was properly admitted but even if it was improperly admitted lockhart versus n still consider it also a gun we need to look at the evidence as a whole and the evidence as a whole shows that when i stick to saying he's a member of our organization that means something here it's clear we're talking about a drug organization klaxon is playing his will if it were clear we would be having this argument right where you are because he's your his ation is in itself a vague statement what does that mean does it mean he's a knowing participant  doesn't tell us what he was told doesn't doesn't tell us what he was told yes but again brick by brick it's very clear from the trial that we were talking about the organization as a drug trafficking organization i'm simply saying that the inference when i was it is saying he's a member of our going to zation he helped me distribute hundreds and hundreds of kilos of cocaine he did this repeatedly he was he was the bridge between the two main  of this organization responsible for hundreds of thousands of dollars it is a reasonable inference that a trusted member of an organization who plays his role in that organization again and again and it's an important role knows the nature of the organization that he's a member of thank you