my argument or date some of the issues how do we have appellate jurisdiction i don't think there's a final order in this case we've done everything we can to figure out what the district court is sitting on that is sitting on something taking it under consideration hasn't done anything so it appears we don't have  it gave a strong tentative denial of any of that of offering any relief but said that it would look again at by and then come back with a written order and it hasn't and we've called up the office to make sure pacer was right and they told us there is no order yes your honor and i myself on three occasions i believe prior to filing my appellate brief contact with the clerk of judge have ellie and she said she'd speak with them and he would send one and we never got one and i just couldn't sit on my hands and not do anything so i want to have a pattern we have appellate jurisdiction that well your honor i think it's my i would say that the court looked at  standard as to this forfeiture case his order stated that there was a competing at the defense and based on this competing evidence that is the summary judgment is is is not warranted in this case where the legal cases that we cited where there were statute of limitations issues or are qualified immunity issues or circle of limitation issues and in this case where the court applies the wrong legal standard and government's case in chief it showed no substance no connection with narcotics activity with the currency in question there was no evidence of that other than speculation he was asked regarding his alleged marriage to marina vos ways and leahy wanted to know are you married to her and he said we were at a lighting one night we had a drug problem and we got married we know which kind of our problems was maybe it was an aphrodisiac problem who knows but that was you know that's what i mean your honor for the government to take that as you know evidence of a drug connection arguing why this court should discount that and why that court should discount it should have the district court should have discounted that and i considered it as error because in this particular case the dog based on the evidence methamphetamine opium heroin and marijuana there was testimony at trial that this officer did not train this dog to alert specifically to metal bands w when he said that the dogs alert told him that the edge of the currency had been recent close proximity to drugs and i believe the jury discounted it because the jury found one hundred fifty one thousand dollars that was in the state not to be connected to narcotics alert to currency in general circulation yes product that the dog only alerted under circumstances strongly suggestive of recent contact with drugs was there was testimony that to drop the dog scuse me did not alert on currency in general circulation right also that he was fruit stall when currency was out he only would alert to the odors emanating from those five specific drugs doesn't that the same as a sophisticated i what you're trying to avoid is a dog just a learned anything under the sign well i read that as saying this is a sophisticated dog that only alerts under special circumstances your honor my understanding is this court's decision dog is also trained to detect violetta of marijuana which everybody knows just last forever a long time is very pungent and then you know how can he  the deputy never heard of any dogs training only on metal vans the way he keeps narcotics in his car for training purposes for six months at a time and that determine what recent close proximity in terms of days weeks or months is  also it's not my record just everybody knows you want to take judicial notice of that that it's not in the record well ok that is not on the record and it stinks of money forever never mind three thousand dollar increments i mean i personally they can say that this is you know this is conducive to drug traffickers and what they do but business people and anybody else who transports or stores large large amounts of currency most people bundle it so they can keep track of what they have i think what they do with the i r s records that showed basically no visible means of support and tons of cash lying around well the officer himself said it could have been from a skimming operation i mean you know when i said well if it was from a skimming operation then it was in from the narcotics proceeds correct and he said correct what was it knows all about ok there was two notes your honor one no set on it it had a thousand dollars in it and it had a note in father my client was testified that he was planning on taking a trip to mexico and that was the money that he was going to bring to his father the second note on the currency was two victor my client from her argo his stepson client had testified to that and lastly there was a some currency with an insurance document i think that was the one that had three thousand at the other two may have only a thousand and insurance document wrapped around it and there was a note on that that said we are now three thousand thank you vic that's what my client testified when his restaurant got robbed and that was the insurance payment so those were the extent of the notes you're on right there was no indicia no excuse me the insurance company gave three thousand dollars in cash payment for robbery no no he got a check but the way he keeps track of his money cash to check and segregated the money so this is from the insurance company thank you vic three thousand dollars i mean why would you know when you're upset with the check in evidence my area of practice is the criminal law your honor and i i do several narcotics cases where there's you know all kinds of indices i mean the laundry notes of transaction there was even a computer in this at this home that was seized that was sent out to forensic testing and came back clean aster the april third incident where this money turned up a month later they searched his two restaurants and his residence and again they  say the money came from my client said the money came from thirty thousand dollars of it was profits from his restaurant fifty seven thousand dollars was money that its sister brought back from mexico which were the proceeds of his parents sale of the home there eighteen thousand when that would have been in march of two thousand three eighteen thousand was brought back with his parents and him and my client in two thousand to one his parents sold their property because they were planning on relocating to the u s and they brought back the eighteen thousand dollars in the car and my client sold some of his property in mexico for a down payment of fifteen and he spent three and brought back twelve of that all by car and also my client has a little cattle operation he testified to in mexico and some of that money was the proceeds from the cattle in the balance so that was what he claimed to be his life savings for a period of twenty years disappearance corroborate that testimony in terms of sale for cash the parents didn't come in to testify the sister testified to that you know was she a first person witness to that yes yes she well she when she went to bring her to mexico to bring her parents  back that's when they had to sift the parents said the fifty seven thousand because they had sold their property and they were going to relocate here in the sister want to get him to bring them across and that's when they had the trouble at the border because there their passports are visas or whatever they had had expired and so the parents can come across and the sister brought the money but as far as being an eyewitness brought a crop illegally it was brought across in violation of the u s thirty one u s c fifty three sixteen because it was not declared whether there was an intent to evade a concealed reporting in concealment to evade a reporting requirement that's that's another issue or any corroboration by way of documents of the cattle sales  lines your honor she did she admits she testified at trial that she was aware of the currency reporting requirement but when she brought the the money on the bus she wasn't aware that the cash was in briefcase that are in the suitcase at the time because of the confusion with the parents not being able to get across so she said i was aware of the reporting requirements but i was not aware of the money in the in the suitcase and nobody asked us on the bus to report any crimes currency and you are from the government thank you point out that there was a very suspicious way in which this currency was secured within an unlocked home the officers testified that there was a briefcase containing seventy four thousand dollars tucked away in a kitchen cabinet which was about twelve feet from a back door out of the garage and there was also the appearance of this individual that had somewhat of a suspicious  explanation on why he was at the location most of the investigators who testified indicated that you parents of this individual was a classic drug dealer courier type of situation y people came on this guy up on this guy the whole case was originated with a probation check he's at the house and the government shows up right correct how many government people show up i believe there's about five officers that it's a drug transaction well not just that there were other factors as well there was there is a discussion about mr fernandez it's possible association with an individual by the name of one possible were other factors as well there were cell phones found within the closet with the said if yasser testified that this types of phones are commonly throwaway phones used by drug traffickers there was the claimant's admission of having this past drug problem that the courts already noted overweight time you know we've talked a little bit about that it sounds to me like he was under the influence of something so he got married that's the drug problem you're talking about that is the information that we presented to this jury yes it's pretty skinny too  and again i and i merely relaying the facts is told to the jury i didn't sit in the deliberation room with them i can only know that they were instructed i think appropriately and reached an opinion that we thought w consistent with the evidence what's really striking about this case and i spent twenty three years in the business is the absence of the kind of stuff you usually find you know ledgers and scales and you know all that stuff and there's none of that here there was no evidence presented to the jury that mr fernandez was in fact using his restaurants as a money laundering i didn't say i skimmed all this money from my restaurant he did not say i skimmed all this money  i was the other factor that i think the jury considered and that is mr fernandez himself the owner of the currency had varying accounts of where it came from and didn't even know how much it was even all have to come from the same place currency in general circulation and as judge try pointed out these both of these officers were asked a very practical question are these dogs in your home at all are they ever around money in general circulation and both of them said yes and both of them indicated that they're trained in such a way that they will not well not alert to money and in general circulation much of what that's what justice will it will be i look to the amount of  money that you have in your pocket and i don't students easy this rest of the if you took all the money that people had in their pockets put together in one place you know to amount perhaps to throws some information out of the court with jackie berger did testify to is that his dog jake did have a track record of currency snaps if you will he said at the time and the time had been involved in twenty five instances of doing a sniff test on currency out of those twenty five times some of which contained fairly significant amounts of money  without the way of telling why there's a dog sometimes doesn't sometimes you have to sort of assume the conclusion and i think in this case your honor there was an effort to introduce evidence of the contamination there and the defense had sought to use the expert testimony jay williams who was the very same expert used in a thirty thousand sixty case mr williams was unfortunately unable to supply the information that was required in the federal rules of civil procedure rule twenty six eight to all the data supporting his opinions and therefore judge valley i think correctly  any any any kind of validation program there is and i would say it was am i don't think it's the type of validation which is measured by any sort of scientific instruments but each of these dons had to go through certification as the court i'm sure is well aware one of the dogs who alerted to law safety michael was not sort of pride in time of the sneath he had entered through the complete training he was trained in all intents and purposes validation i don't know i don't know your honor is that true that the dog doesn't bark that actually what he does is the handler is trained to observe the dog they have a standard routine that they follow and if the dog alerts he gets very excited and pabst and wait and wait my goose tail but it isn't a bark no bark situation it's a more sophisticated whether it turn of the head or an exciting excitement in its attitude those are the things that the handler is watching for whether it barks or whether it sits or whether it scratches at the item that is a learned response that is trained  these these that can schools which corresponds with the other physical behavior that's noted by the dog handler but we don't know with the do the same thing if it was built up in terms of there was a female seventeen the currency smuggling smuggling charges in this case if you segregate that out isn't that the seven and twelve so a total of sixty nine thousand it's fifty seven thousand plus the eighteen thousand twelve thousand of the eighteen correct family and claim its sister admitting that she was aware of the currency reporting requirements i think conveniently indicated that he had no idea about the transfer reporting requirements despite second last paragraph i ask him ok which one to use the most easily for jake to detect answer marijuana and which of those five drugs the author last the longest amount of the time before it dissipate answer i don't know yeah well one the court asked me regarding the judge should at least order and i also found that while i was sitting down it's on page fourteen when we talk about the competing evidence first paragraph a fourteen year old what are you answering the court asked me when i was up here earlier where where is judge of ellie's order regarding competing evidence there was a question as to that and you asked me where it was or just