started cases that involved the findings of insufficient evidence and the government cited cases or that was sufficient the differences in those cases are kind of interesting are which was cocaine found any in the house were defined as being a housekeeper as well as a visitor who had been there several days there are two passenger cases where there are vehicles involved but the defendants were passengers in the vehicle and there was no indication of any evidence of direct involvement but in this case though it does your client is the driver his is a truck he's a truck driver  i think over was it twenty or thirty years experience yeah and he acknowledged that he had checked the truck over and he always checks the trucks over to make sure that there's a he acknowledged that he actually opened the back door and looked inside ok so we have all that evidence out of his own mouth and then we have the testimony of the border patrol agents who testified that you could smell the marijuana out of this truck ten to fifteen feet away that when one agent who was allergic to marijuana stepped inside she broke out in hives it was so concentrated  and go to the jury and they make a very simple finding he was the driver and sole occupant of the vehicle the jury could probably probably infer that he knew about the marijuana  and then just drives away i think that you might be in a better position to suggest that he didn't have any direct knowledge but you deal with imputed knowledge now the circumstances  different in that he acknowledged that he checked the truck over he acknowledged that he opened the back of the truck and looked inside ok and then we have testimony  for the several border states as to the nature of the odor so we're not talking about it putative knowledge here we're talking about credibility as to direct knowledge and there's a big difference and direct and the jury had his testimony in front of them and they had the border patrol agents testimony in front of them and they decided that believe the border patrol agents and not him so we're really not talking about  imputed knowledge as judge mchugh and suggested because she's talking about somebody who just jumps in the back of the car and i agree with her wholeheartedly if somebody jumps in the back of a car and they don't know what's going on you would have to i te the knowledge that there was something you know in the carburetor or under the car or something to these otherwise innocent people or people we assume are innocent under the law but in this case we have him actually opening common sense factor for the jury with i've never smoked marijuana in my life but i can sure tell you what it smells like because i was a college student in the days when when it was t the jury can you know a credibility here's a guy who lives in mexico who admitted he smoked marijuana at some point who later says gee i don't know what it smells like when it was so strong that piece  if he did explain when the governor i don't know how much time i got left but when that when the government pointed out inconsistent statements that he had made when he hears it all made sense because he least seven areas of evidence that the support that the defendant knew that he possessed marijuana there was dominion and control the value and amount of marijuana the overwhelming smell of marijuana the defendant's inconsistent stories sham company that he claimed he was working for the defendant did not act as a reasonable driver and the defendant's lack of credibility first under dominion and control the defendant was the driver the vehicle was the sole occupant of the vehicle and he had access to the marijuana he did when he first picked up the vehicle he opened the back of the vehicles we had access to where the marijuana was stored and additionally when the agent when he was stopped at secondary they went to the back of the vehicle to open it they didn't testify there was no lock on that door it was just a latch that you simply opened so he had access to a complete dominion and control over the marijuana and because that's the marijuana additionally the value and amount of marijuana exactly especially at the start amount of marijuana the smell was so overwhelming that reasonable truck driver would have smelled the marijuana either abandon the load not done for it with transporting that and leaving a million dollars on the side of the road or he would have called  police he would have been a reasonable person and called the police and said i smell marijuana in this i don't want to be responsible for this i don't want my trucking license to be taken away so a reasonable person or i'm sorry the owner of those drugs would have known that and considering that they could have lost a million dollars worth of drugs he was awful quite angry about the delivery  well exactly and that was part of his inconsistent stories than his credibility that the jury could have found he was not credible he had three different stories of how he obtained it where he was supposed to take it and the stories basically kept changing even a trial the more the government asked him specifics the more he would just add to the story add to the store in his inconsistency is just proof and initially he had said that he was going to take it to place in tucson a miracle mile he described where he described how he was going to get there he didn't have the number of the location where he was going to take it the name of a person used to deliver to he didn't know the name of the person he obtained the drugs from he didn't have a phone number asked if you had broken down on the freeway on this drug and we remember this is in the middle of the desert in the middle of the summer and very hot season if he had broken down who was he going to call to tell them i've broken down i can't make the load he didn't have that information that is not what a reasonable driver truck driver especially would have and that's also goes to his credibility as to the overwhelming smell the third area as i said this is three thousand one hundred fifty five pounds and if we can set that have this setting for you this was in july in the desert are normally in the desert working at the checkpoint they testified in that particular day it was very very hard he picked up the drugs from his testimony about five pm he drove them provide an hour until six pm when he was stopped at the checkpoint so those three thousand over three thousand pounds of marijuana is in this metal box it's not refrigerated he it's basically as agent testify cooking and he's driving from the gallows to the real rico checkpoint it's even building up more of a stan in the shade or rather when he opened the doors a gust of hot air came out but he claimed he didn't smell the marijuana and even when he gets to the checkpoint when the aide the agent has him open the drugs after finn's didn't really know for an hour in the truck of baking in the truck three thousand the canine drag to the agent there he had even directed him to start searching the canine was dragging agent alerting all the way ten feet away he's our dog is already aware of this now he just made it too and keeps alerting he keep this was a huge amount and as your honor had pointed out earlier he had the agent who was allergic to the touch of marijuana when she got into the truck just a few mins alone started her it's sheen and having high because it was so overwhelming everyone agreed it was an overwhelming smell if it continued to maintain he cannot smell it even at the checkpoint and his mind and then he couldn't smell the marijuana the jury could have found unbelievable and contributed to their finding of hired me he's been admitted that he lied and he came on the stand the reason he lied was he didn't want that company to believe that he was trafficked drugs but he admits that he's lying all along the way and then and when he tells truck driver working twenty years in that area he was familiar with the tractor receipts from the year with the companies out there this company that he claim for there was no evidence that it even existed the agent who testified he had contacted intel who had information on commercial vehicles no information about that company there was no phone book ad for the company the address that the license plate was registered to that person had not lived there for a year there was  he had no phone number no name no address for this company and again that undermines the legitimacy of his actions and as we've discussed briefly also he wasn't acting as a reasonable truck driver he didn't have any information about the company he was working for where he was going to deliver this to how he was going to reach them and also as you had mentioned he carefully checked everything on the outside of the truck the flaps to oil the gauges and he said because he didn't want police to stop him they had noticed something wrong with the truck and when he opens the back of the truck he just looks inside he doesn't check to be sure it's secure he doesn't have any paperwork indicating to him what it is that he's transporting and instead of being  load being responsible for what he's transporting inside the united states he and finally the defendant's lack of credibility the jury could infer guilty mind all of those things we discussed combine unbelievable unbelievability that he could not smother over three thousand pounds of marijuana his different stories his continuing to add to the stories during trial and not acting like a reasonable truck driver the jury can find him unbelievable which w consistent with a verdict of guilty so your honour's viewed in the light most favorable to the government i'm sorry to sustaining the jury's verdict the government presented ample evidence to support a guilty verdict in