well here the first case united states sources rodriguez warning honors on behalf of mr rodriguez we're asking for acquittal on the three counts of conviction i'm going to start with the drug conspiracy count as your honour's aware from the brief there's a lot of no separate argument on the gun count right correct that just if they if they if the first if your first argument prevails and that you have a bail exactly on thank you in terms of the drug conspiracy count obviously we detailed all the things that the government does does not have but your inquiry is going to focus on what does the government have and does that rise to a level sufficient to support the conviction i break it into following categories we have the evidence of what the government in fact actually saw so you have mr rodriguez at two forty nine concord road you have him walking out with a white box you have him getting in the car with this and you have communications been gay so you have that chunk of what the government saw we know that's enough not enough to support the drug conspiracy conviction because we know this him self got acquitted through twenty nine on those facts and more so then the evidence pertaining to the to the house right and so he apparently was involved with that because reid's was over she rented the home he's tied to putting in the furniture or putting in the comcast putting in the utilities there are there is no question that there's fact supporting a connection between mr rodriguez and the house and you've identified them which is  setting up the arisan ordering furniture the alternate number on the on the water alternate number on the lease and i think those are the sum total of facts in which if forty kilos of drugs were found in conspiracy but in addition there is evidence that the drugs in the cabin were wrapped or somehow marked with red on them in one way or another and that's what we're charged with the criminal conduct of distribution to ortiz so in order for that to fit in it's got to be uncharged criminal conduct that fits within the test for being part of this conspiracy well why why doesn't it fit i mean it's two things that potentially connected to your honor that the government can rely upon is that there is some red tape on the packaging and there's a mention of a mexican being the source and if that's enough to make the leap between those drugs being part of the conspiracy they're not i mean the fact that a mexican may be the source of the drugs is a pretty broad ranged leap in terms of living even the mexican side got the drugs in red tape which is consistent with the drugs that were found trafficking in the house which seem to suggest some link to out it's not whether one one one or one but you have to look at this in the light most favorable to the government and the stage and this court has been good about looking closely at conspiracy cases in terms of here we've got a very finite period of time we've got two bases for leaping we've got the connections to the house and we've got what r t c says on the question is whether those are sufficient to make the leap in the connection to the house there's zero evidence my guy was ever downstairs i mean there is none of that because the government didn't decide like we're getting acquitted on the basis of the money and from my point our argument is that in order to connect him to the drugs either he's got to have a sufficient possessory or legal interest there to effectively attribute constructive knowledge of what's going position is acquittal on that and you go to the other one because i think in my view that's a stronger case that you can make about the purpose of the movement of the money i certainly agree a stronger i kind of need to win both in order to get him some effective relief but in terms of the money laundering and yes our position is there's no why you know there's no evidence sufficient to support the walk the fact that it's concealed in the car or in the in the compartment rack and the fact that it's wrapped in a certain way that hides its nature hides that it's money or it's pretty boxes is is is not not relevant to the question of concealment sure you could transport money in a concealed way but the question is is it for the purpose of concealing the proceeds of drug and you're your argument all along i'm giving the other side a preview of my heart problem your part argument all along is there's no indication about what this money was going to be used for how it was going to be what was going to happen to it afterwards correct i mean the inferences are at least equal if not more in favor of the fact that this money is going back to whatever it's owed to as opposed to something else so you have a difference under quayle obert in transport for purposes of concealing and concealing for purposes of transport and so i asked the why the government went ahead and responded as brief and they identified three facts identified the quail are fact which is that it's wrapped in a way that is concealed it's sent from a drug house and it's sent in installments and i listen to those three and go ok and overwhelming amount of dishes that the that the defendant knew that the proceeds were drug proceeds and in this case as well there was testimony from the undercover is that he was at least called for the and b happens to be on the way to to paying off your supplier i think the jury can draw the inference based on the undercovers testimony of what he was what he was there for at least as well as the inference that there is a lot of money here there's a lot of drugs there's no discussion about depositing it offshore accounts or buying a business with that then could be so he used the term but there was really no explanation clearly of what he thought money or what where the money was going so what was being laundered how was it being laundered by being concealed in the car and being brought to someplace else i understand the point judge i mean i think that even though there was no discussion as to it before the jury as to the laundering process i think the jury can infer that because the undercover where it was they're acting as  wanderer with the knowledge that or with the evidence before the jury that rodriguez was not a minor player in this conspiracy but i'm just calling i mean he may have been there is a longer a but if he if it's not clear what he's doing i'm not sure how we call him a on that money is being moved and the money is being moved for some purpose we don't know what the purpose is this so called laundering doesn't tell us what the purpose is it seems a jury would have to speculate that the money would be one to got to the other and would be laundered but the jury would know you do if you say no they're moving money from a to b i mean other than the jury knowing that money was moved from point a to point b what else does the jury know about what's going to happen with the money with respect to the movement there is no evidence as to what would happen  proceeds away from a stash someone who does that removes a stash of drugs away from a particular location does so with the purposes of concealing the funds and therefore commits money laundering and that that's not our law as you know it's not judge but that's it seems to be what you're saying because in in response to questions from both judge walker and  judge bolton you point to no evidence that supports money one hundred you all you're saying is it could be inferred but when you're asked specifically by both of the judges for more you don't have anything more there was no testimony as to what the money was what was going to happen with the money that is correct again the distinguishing factor between queller in this case i would argue judge is that given rodriguez his role in the conspiracy it was not a reasonable for the jury to infer that he was moving the money for the purposes of concealing it and given that you know you lose on your adversary so it's a pyrrhic victory for him because he's not going to be able to help his client much more to help his client by getting the can drug conspiracy think overwhelmingly established and was sufficient for the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant conspired to traffic narcotics and i think you'll agree that this was an unusual investigation that basically was beyond that that was it in terms of the investigation and then there's a search and then the house and and and then ortiz as testimony which came in later yes doesn't the jury could at that point not not tied to the to the conspiracy charge but i guess the inference could go either way on that it could i think the inference the judge strongly supports there's of the tape because of the tape because of the fact that house what about what about the ortiz's testimony about the october two thousand and twelve for sale and that that takes place the now takes place natural inference or the natural that the jury can reach is that had the cocaine in his possession in october they set up the stash house they get it ready they moved the cocaine the same cocaine or similar very that's wrapped in the red tape that comes from the mexican supplier they move that into the stash house at two forty nine concord road and i think that is a natural logical inference that the jury can put every you look at you make the argument that rodriguez possessed thousands of dollars in cash and that evidence that he knew that the conspiracy was ongoing involving a controlled substance in our prior cases our cases talk about possession of cash or something like you know one hundred twenty thousand far more then the thousands in this case are there any other cases that you can point to that suggest cases where the defendant had just a few thousand dollars and support not the top of my head judge but i think  not only is the fact that that's one of many indicia of his role in this conspiracy i would trust the court that that six thousand dollar deposit that was made at a well as fargo bank was made it is further deposited into a wells fargo bank on october seventeenth of two thousand and twelve in the name of not angelo rodriguez he had the receipt for that deposit when he was arrested two weeks later on october seventeenth to deposit was made on october seventeenth flew out from new york city to los angeles on october eighteenth there are very next day six thousand dollars starts to be withdrawn from that account the natural inference is that the jury could have reached is that that his payment that six thousand dollars that was put into someone else's account and then he went to los angeles and took the money out and i believe that although the volume the amount of money may not be so substantial in terms of the what this court is considered to themselves in terms of particular packaging i mean would you say that and i guess the part of the question is is is the tape that they wrapped in enough it is that distinctive enough of a quality for for to be considered something that links it to this current conspiracy well i think judge not only is it just the red tape but again it goes back to it's it's the red tape it's the the fact that rodriguez said my supplier is mexican which i think the jury could have easily found concluded based on the evidence that was yeah i mean i have to  cocaine in with rodriguez in rodriguez his possession the argument i think would be that rodriguez he was part of this church conspiracy was part of some other drug conspiracy at the same time ongoing with another forty kilos of  cocaine i think the jury could reasonably reject that argument it wasn't made but by the defense it wasn't a defense to this case but i think the jury could have reasonably rejected with his out what is in many respects the the luckiest guy in the world argument you know and so i think the jury was able to if they had considered it reject that argument thank you thank you thank you owners just briefly in terms of the money laundering to the extent that there's any reliance on what the undercover testified to i did clarify and i did double check while sitting there that i'm his testimony in terms of money laundering use of the word money laundering moving none of that was offered for the truth that was by way of background it was specifically limited so it couldn't substantively support money laundering in terms of one of the honors indicated i mean this is a strange investigation and it is a very time constrained best occasion obviously law enforcement could have decided to do something else they could have continued to surveil etc they didn't so they are stuck with what they have and what they have is different what that they typically have an is that enough and a lot of it rides on artie's in the question is whether you can t conspiracy and you know i go to the hardware store and there is red tape blue tapes over tape kamal tape these days you know there's a lot of kinds of tape in the notion that somehow tape is going to be enough to say this is the same corpus of drugs and same involve as what you end up ultimately finding a month later is a speculative jump and we submit to speculative thank you thank you thank you both for your arguments the court will reserve decision