arguments before this court and as i say each time when i'm invited to the ninth circuit for all argument i think it's a privilege to be here i try not to waste the court's time and i'm going to do the same today but again i think it is a privilege to be invited because it doesn't exist that's the go to obviously judge tried it's not because the motion was preempted i made the motion there's no doubt about that but the girding comes to the argument of don't make this motion again  are born in the affidavit continually told the magistrate has more fully described below and so as you read through the search warrant you're looking for the issues more fully described below counsel when i was preparing that motion as i'm looking at more fully describe below i'm expecting to see some factual that's now granted special original form when he made the application for the search warrant set forth all of the potential defendants and set forth all of the facts in the case and that's important in this argument that it's more important in a speedy trial  and gets to the language moron fully describe below how the thunderbird and the sebring is is involved in the criminal activity or tied to the appellant such that there's probable cause to search it there's no more fully described below a page twenty six he says based on my experience it's common for perpetrators to maintain documents within their residence or vehicles and then it says and these vehicles belong to these people therefore i believe that they may have stuff but that's the reference right there it is described it's a lousy description it doesn't tie anything into their it's described it's described but it doesn't describe appellant doing criminal activity in iran it makes a generalization and my argument is that in the search  overruling or directing this court not to grant the remedy of reversed and remain to the district court to decide whether it should be dismissed the indictment with or without prejudice here is why what i believe occurred in this case happened in the whole case and what happened in the whole case was that the appellant in the whole case was dragged along with a defendant that was never going to go to trial and a plea agreement was reached in the whole obtain testimony from that codefendant to testify against hall and that's exactly what happened here when the first indictment came down may two thousand and three three defendants were named well let me stop the picture there for a minute because as i was mentioning in a search warrant argument with a search warrant was given to the magistrate that affidavi defendants all potential all investigation done nothing as far as investigation nothing as far as potential defendants was added to or subtracted after didn't it's not that they didn't have the information to do it it's not that they needed more investigation security and all of the investigation was done by the f b i it was listed in the search warrant and there was nothing when the first appearance happens and that happens on may twelfth two thousand and three from may twelfth two thousand and three to may twenty eighth two thousand and three we have the first period of time running and that's fourteen days between may twenty eighth and the next important court hearing which was in september that was september seventeenth of two thousand and three was the following you had two unindicted coconspirators plead guilty and cooperate with the government when really and when the superseding indictment came into play was that the only thing that was changed was the addition of sandy or was there a lot of other stuff that was changed but clearly the addition of new charges troubling you say were a lot of inferences so i'm asking you to look at the hard cases the list case in terms of the government attempt to manipulate the clock you're asking us to look at inferences i'm asking you to look at the record and from the record to draw  that's different from the affidavit the search warrant doesn't get you anything on the speeding truck what does the clock just run keep running i'm not exactly sure of your questions or truck but let me try to answer as best i can what i'm suggesting is this all of the investigation that was done all of the information needed by appellants counsel and by the government was done prior to the may eighth two thousand and three when the first in came down and why did you say i need a whole lot of time to review this new superseding indictment when i did not say that in december of two thousand and three that was the pellets first counsel appellate first counsel made that representation on  all there's nothing new here just the addition of shandy let's go i just time out there's a whole bunch of new stuff here i need to take a look at it that's exactly what he said all i can tell you is this i know from looking at the affidavit i don't have the answer to that question i don't always or i don't have a greater interest shandy hadn't agreed to plead guilty at the time he was indicted as far as i could tell the record does not indicate that but we do know that he only stayed in the case less than three months because in march trial in september two thousand and three i'm ready to go and the district court doesn't address that in september two thousand and three what the district court addresses this will do you want to new attorney or not when the trial is set in came into the case before i came in when the hearing was in front of the district court appellant tells the district court number one i have told my lawyer from day one no plea agreement i want to go to he was indicted to be tried with mr king and he was indicted because of the ongoing investigation that occurred from  criminal activity but without the statements of cooperation defend against that occurred during the evolution of the case and the further investigation that we can do including analyzing phone records and other documents that have been obtain  potential target definitely a person of interest and a subject but whether or not we could proceed to trial with him the answer was no not until we could indict him and as soon as we did we proceeded swiftly and mr shan demanded a jury trial that's the reason it took so long to bring the case we wanted to make sure we were prepared to go to trial against mr king and mr shandy now that mr shandy saw better of his eventually made a deal with the united states is a different matter but the record is clear and i've cited the courts record another misstatement mr grainger was whether or not there was trial clock by bringing this indictment he said there was evidence on the record well you know what he told the district court black and white on his excerpt of record page thirty three forty three forty five a trial district court just like you questioning mr kreiner on these three points the court now but wasn't he wasn't going to be a government witness when he was brought in mr greiner i can't make that representation to the court represent to the court that i do all i can that we sent to the court is this colon that when she was brought in on december eighth it was only three months and nine days later on march seventeenth two thousand and four where you could kilty he's entered into a cooperation briefs and therefore you didn't address it in your the hall case was not argued until the reply brief so you probably have some reaction to the whole case your honor and you know there are several greiner back in the district court in this case said i don't even have those facts i don't even have the facts indicating that shani was brought into this case to get a new speedy trial  clock or to sometimes it's simply provide for the beginning of a reasonable delay in the running of an existing clock i believe it's the latter your honor and that's the interpretation that the supreme court gives us because it's under a reasonable nice standard exclusions for another year approximately eight months to prepare to prepare because the case was obviously complex he then finals motions which exclude more time and that's not subject to reasonable standard and then he apparently claims that he couldn't get in in the morning and he shows up an hour or two hours late in the rain later that afternoon as i recall on me second superseding indictment but the point is that  is that when he brings a claim for the district court to do some work and for me to do some work and in twenty five days later decides that it's now a claim that's right and i'm going to go ahead and file my speech filing claims and that's resolved immediately it's dear to me being accused of goading someone into filing emotion or to making a motion for a mistrial you know there were two mistrial motions made on attorney too but but i'm not prone to jumping up and interrupting the judge while he's ruling on a decision and he did and he ruled on the decision after  i saw people sleeping so i'm going to be ethical obligation and i'm i'm also making the record clear that the law enforcement officer sitting next to me and i did not see anything to contradict the that afternoon he makes the most i'm sorry for that and he makes the motion again and i would only encourage the clerk to look at mr kreiner zone excerpt of record on page three seventy eight one three says what do you want to do counsel i'm sitting over there i'm not being addressed there's a pause paragraph then the judge starts when using allow a mistrial because what do you want to do there's no pause nothing indicate that anything more than a rhetorical question yes your honor thank you you know on a search warrant i hate to say that mr greiner and mr king fail to identify the issues with clarity again but they any information that this was being done for medical purposes well that time i have not read the whole list or mr case but in terms of evidence you told the court you didn't have any evidence that was being done right exactly and i stand by what the record says and i'll stand by my argument here today that the record does indicate that after i read the three cases although as a listener that there is an inference to be drawn by mr shelley being broadly ending december third two thousand and three not the best practice to cite your that shoe to be on that foot other than mr shanley was brought in for one purpose of our purpose or if i can just answer your question i know my time's up here is the reason why i grabbed on to this church chart here is the reason why i say that mr eighth status conference october twenty eighth two thousand and three appellant then counsel told the district court that he would file an exclusion of time document to exclude time so the trial date which exclusion of time that the thomas requested so the clock is running and at the end of two thousand and three fifty eight days have run without mr shandy being brought in speedy trial clock runs without a question at the end of two thousand and thought if the court agrees with my argument not even looking at two thousand and five when i came into the case at the end of two thousand and forty seven or thirty first two thousand and four will be submitted for decision in the court will a