california engaged in credit sales that would would have a very different significance from what we have news have been told through the evidence in this case that there was something on usual groups that did the buyer and seller were also paying commissions to a third party even always incarcerated indicating a level of connection it wasn't present here the i don't think that the credit sales would be of the single the simple truth is the wrong of the smaller conspiracy is stronger than just washes out the prejudice even if there was a lot of evidence heard about the other for it to be strong enough so that we don't worry about the prejudicial impact of the it evidence about the ask a conspiracy and it were sunni is the wrong conspiracy well it doesn't appear to be any very clear articulation but if you look at  but it is clear that even if there is sufficient evidence including directed missions in video and audio tape record recordings that's not quite enough to show enough sufficiency to to eliminate prejudice as to the drug weight that was attributable to mr copeland and is the court's decisions in a cohen solace and in corey make crystal clear that more is required in order to current court decision this court acknowledged that in making these individual wise determinations at times often the court has to make credibility determinations and there were specific issues in dispute regarding that probate including the fact that at least a portion a significant portion of the drug weight that was attributed to mr compliant p s r was larger than the amount for which mr pitt dini had been found  received it and i would suggest that under those circumstances based on the tally the facts that that that the court failed to address that is well adequately explained explain the sentence to mr bonnie thank you thank you maybe he's a queer william wasser for the united states to address the variance issue first there are some key facts in this case that demonstrate why this was a single conspiracy and not as defendants allege two separate conspiracies one of them as the court has alluded to is the fact that both the beginning and the end of this conspiracy the california defendants were winter for the drugs to the boston defendants another is that the boston defendants were willing to create pay substantial amounts of money to the california defendants to make it easier for the california defendants to purchase for their drugs will be paid we know it was fifty thousand dollars and mr taylor testified that on several other occasions they were prepayments for to pilgrim's of cocaine which at the going rate would have been about sixty thousand dollars so there was independent statements traded between the two components of this conspiracy because they were willing to assist one another in selling cocaine suggested that that might not be enough if i ask the question is there any evidence apart from home loans that might indicate that each half of this conspiracy that one aspect of conspiracy has an interest in the success of the other half when they're receiving substantial amounts of money in this case we had over a million dollars worth of drugs transported from california to boston so boston defendants had an interest in being able to receive that cocaine into california defense had an interest in getting rid of that cocaine but we don't have any sort of direct evidence here where they say oh i'm glad you're making a lot of money on this know obviously self censorship they wanted to make sure they were paid quantities only credit but that is enough to find a conspiracy and not simply a buyer seller relationship here we had ten or eleven deliveries mills of somewhere between thirty seven forty one kilograms of cocaine that whether or not any reasonable fact finder could have concluded that there was the single conspiracy lodged in the indictment there's also extensive communication between the two sides of the conspiracy there are more than two hundred fifty phone of conspiring to distribute cocaine they would question is whether or not it was a single conspiracy so the evidence was overwhelming and the only prejudice that they identified is so called still the prejudice in other words that mr bidini was convicted based on however to suggest that the only reason he was convicted is because of that evidence of a completely separate florida transaction is to insult the intelligence of the jurors they can they can decide they can determine that that was evidence that was against mr pap juice but it said that the evidence against the defendants who are engaged in the smaller conspiracy was only or you believed sufficient so the court didn't even decide whether or not the evidence was sufficient so that it was arguably sufficient  fails to make a defendant specific finding as opposed to a conspiracy white funding and this court has said that it was used a little for whether there was a conspiracy wire defendant specific finding but it was defendants specific  than forty kilograms of cocaine that had been transacted in the court concluded that that was enough to show at least fifteen kilograms which was all that was needed to find a base often sell for thirty two under the guidelines so mr  fighting what he said is that the jury necessarily must have disbelieved all this testimony you just heard and therefore you can't find me responsible for anything above and beyond what was actually ceased so he never said this is conspiracy why versus defend specific and and that's the problem if he had made that argument of mr corvet it would have been preserved with respect to the disparity in most of the sentences again it's just silly as pointed out part of that disparity obviously is a result of factors such as in this case some of them pleaded guilty some of them did not mr capillaries face the fact that he was an organizer and leader in this conspiracy but that is more than adequate to show that there is not an improper yesterday and that's that's a somewhat confusing claim to categorize in terms of how this court would review it because with respect to the facts supporting pinhead smith it really doesn't matter whether somebody is receiving all the facts to support it and we make that argument  thirty to forty deliveries over two years other drug pushers much stronger facts and much many many more credit sales this is akin to the inference regarding the phone calls i think most of those were place tomorrow who was the clear lunch  of the alleged california conspiracy and the really can't be treated to mr bean also going out that we need in california were never alleged to have been partners and they were merely the last two defendants left after the other defendant said he's guilty i mean consideration of the sentencing disparities even if that's the case the problem is the consequence of whether or not it was in the other p s r s the sentence is in hands and it's unfair and frankly not explained by the court and we think that the a sufficient distinction to explain why the judge might have decided to think there's no reason to go into it as much with name one as opposed to well in in  in the p s r whether got probation or whether with the input you know whether there was some reason to leave it out i cannot i cannot say but it is troubling that the facts that demonstrate some instances of cooperation the troubling fact is that in the fine in all of these defendants we had i can't count how many there are right now but they're not defendants only mr plotting was got that enhanced