good morning i just wanted to let everyone know that judge sykes will be participating by telephone so there might be a slight lag and if we have any technical difficulties just stop and let those be ironed out before we continue   st case for today as united states versus sanchez mr le reliability of the evidence the problem with the district court's reliance on this on this evidence in our estimate is that there was no way for it to make a discriminating appraisal of the probable accuracy of the post arrest statement at least in a number of critical respects there was no basis to assess or test harper dros it's unstated motives his pipes the reason he chose to gave up an a to sanchez an individual by the way who did not have a criminal history or any violence in his background while working in the midst of a sea of dangerous individuals as money launderers and and the drug trafficking world has certainly could have had additional far made far more dangerous sources that he didn't want to get and one of the things the government race in its response is that well the did in the course of that statement give up a number of other coconspirators can tell me to ask you why do you say that it was necessarily his testimony because didn't the government find refinery in florida and that was that was part of the conspiracy but the what i'm taking issue with and there's no doubt there's no question that diego played sanchez was guilty he pled guilty he accepted responsibility he in fact wondered money the problem is to get t figure that the district court got to to broaden the scope and the bit and raise the basic sensible as it did it necessarily had to rely on park which rose is estimated in terms of who was responsible for what because there were two the district court still over defense objections that i'm going to apply fifty one percent which resulted in forty one million four hundred and sixty thousand being added to some of the other provable figures to reach the district court's finding was about sixty million altogether position that that number was drastically overstated by use of this video this post arrest video statement at a sentencing hearing and the fact is i think there's any number of reasons why mr parker draws a would have said what aware that she made a finding that he was credible well she made a finding that the informant was credible who did testify why i'm talking about who is a codefendant in this case and that the quoted testimonies and so she made a finding regarding the observation her observation of the video which was introduced into evidence but i think the fact remains that when we're talking about due process and what's reliable we said we have no idea what's going through part patrollers his mind after  cross examine i'm saying that's one thing i don't know that due process requires cross examination is sensing here what it does require is that sentences and the district courts finding with respect to the guidelines be based on reliable evidence and there's just not enough there to up for us for us to make that determination so i wouldn't necessarily say that cross examination is required i wouldn't say that at all that it's required it's certainly one thing that i think's appropriate but if there is no substitute for cross examination or something to determine your client was based on the testimony that you're challenging and the only thing i'd maybe quibble with this i call probably testimony too but it really wasn't testimony right it was just a video recorded statement one of the things we cite of narcotics piled on the defendant through u s marshals recitation of additional narcotics sales that that were used as relevant conduct and that individual sentencing that's also what happened here the video statement was in evidence yes but the evidence was put forth of the sentencing hearing largely through the testimony of the case agent who did testify and really the contents of that video and made various commentary to the district court at the sentencing hearing do you want to  may please the court my name is peter flanagan i represent the united states the district court sixty one million dollars calculation was a conservative figure based on multiple sources of reliable evidence the district court began with records that were received from golden opportunities that refinery kept track of the cold that was laundered through it by the defendant's conspiracy under a fictitious company name called shop in silver the defendant in his plea agreement admitted that his conspiracy had been laundering money under that fifteen since august th love and the beginning of this conspiracy fed ex records and agents or valence confirm this saw the members of the conspiracy sending fe its money back and the defendant mr parker joseph flew to meet with their u s representatives who were funneling all this money into gold and back to mexico for help in repaying the lost money so mr torres testified to that at the sensing hearing as well and mr torres testified to the same date the same amounts the same location of the seizure so between them they were they were well corroborated and it's two of the three individuals that were present for this chicago meeting so it's both that we have that from but so basically after july of two thousand and twelve parker dros was laundering money exclusively with the defendant and from that point forward it's a total amount of about twenty million dollars that was longer that's post july two thousand and twelve conduct i think where we're at issue is is is the pre july two thousand and twelve conduct and for that the court assumed against the defendants benefit that none of the the defended that's not a necessary assumption that has to be made but it was big made to the defense benefit part of the said that arche and the defendant knew each other and that they were friends that they they weren't one wasn't working on behalf of the other so the court excised that dollars men he did launder more money for the defendant but there is other evidence that showed the defendant's more pervasive involvement in in this conspiracy in this preacha like two thousand and twelve time period including the trip to chicago half of the money that was seized according to the testimony and the poster a statement was belong to the defendant half belong to arky arky is not the one who flies up to chicago to meet with the source and the  the individual helping them with in los angeles the defendant does and we see where it's the report calls in the post cooperation period with the defendant and testimony from the that if the cooperate source twelve time period it's not just park addresses were based on that statement and this other evidence the district court found that the defendant was responsible for only fifty one percent of the pre fifty one percent the lowest possible percentage he could use consistent with the evidence and i have a curious question when they who upon shocker were the get go does it they all come in with a big wad of cash is the source actually testified to a funny story of funny something funny it is in certain sense he says the st time he did this he was with the person who brought in a suitcase full of cash and video and observe this this interview as it took place heard the words of mr park which was a spoke in english and in spanish with a translation that was uncontested new english translation it's uncontested able to assess his mannerisms as she she specifically said that she observed his demeanor and and that in found him to be corroborated with other evidence so we're not just talking as for the due process argument goes we're not just talking about you know a statement in uncorroborated it's under ported statement that can't can't be of course there's no cross examination available but the district court wasn't relying on that statement alone it looked to other pieces of evidence things like that that story of that or that account of the two million dollars seizure and mention like these little bits of evidence that turn in to be giant mounds of evidence that is always in a related in corroborating each other so there were initial for liability to assuage and if you process concerns here so in insurance the the sense in courts finding on the value of the laundered funds it was not clear in less there are any questions an this out of post arrest statement and specifically the specific portion of it where he attributed more funds during this eighty one million three hundred thousand dollars period to diego panetta sanchez as opposed to th individual named arkan that's something the district court had to rely in specifically in issuing its ruling didn't know that she was relying on this evidence the problem i think  to with respect to the government's argument is well it's they they did try to establish for your honor is that if this statement was corroborated by another a number of other sources of evidence and again i refer to for you an argument this morning we put  our pipe reply brief to the fact that there is no question the government had a large amount of evidence and capable of proving mr panetta sanch is guilty and he in fact pled guilty to wandering a substantial sum of money but the figure is that rather analogous there was this as it started mentioning this marshall related out of court statement to attribute relevant conduct to a defendant in a drug case based on other transactions and in commerce it wasn't just the marshal's testimony that the government put forward there was evidence of the charged conduct in the form of two drug sales in may and june one thousand nine hundred and eighty there were missions from the defendant they actually put forward the live testimony of a buyer turned cooperator who described five additional narcotics transactions with the defendant the defendant was observed carrying additional narcotics that were purchased by anyone on his person at the time of one of his arrests there was a neighbor who actually testified at the sentencing hearing at least  opinion that he saw the defendant outside for a two year period selling our comics every day so even despite that they say anything to anyone to the neighbor yeah no he was a governor and not that i know of just from reading the opinion but he he did say something at the sentencing hearing and and for two years that's all i'm saying is he cooperating with someone or just keeping it to him so it's it's a three page opinion i'm not sure to be honest but he did think the government obviously located him and put testimony forward at the sentencing hearing so whether they approached him or he approached them i'm not sure but they're with the point i'm trying to make is there was all this crowd reading evidence in addition to the testimony of the marshal relating this ou