marijuana the nd count was the use of a mail facility and for others of a drug transaction drug crime the rd count was possession with intent to distribute a quantity fifty grams or more of methamphetamine those last two spears accounts have an element of knowledge and we suggest to the court that the government's evidence fails even though it's a very heavy burden and his court has said repeatedly most recently last friday in united states for  now the aiding and abetting count has a slightly different number of elements to it but i would suggest of the court that that also has an element of knowledge and knowledge of the fact their crime had been committed knowledge of joining in the crime and and actually promoting its conclusion and that also has an element of of knowledge in there in in those two aiding abetting counts i would like to go through now the evidence of the government the trial and i would divide that evidence into the direct evidence that the normal search of my client's guilt and then the circumstantial evidence of my client's guilt that the government presented a trial the only direct evidence of my clients  seven september two thousand and sixteen controlled delivery of a package a sealed package which contained approximately one hundred and ninety seven grams of nothing shot of me which had been intercepted by a postal inspector on  the nd of september we have video that that's in volume three of the joint appendix and just very briefly your honor is going through that video all it shows is the postal inspector driving up in the truck shortly there after my client enters stage right he goes behind the truck so you don't actually see the carrier delivering or handing the package to my client although the postal inspector testified that's what he did my client took the sealed package to get up to his porch put it down on the porch filled it with his keys in his pocket unlocked the door to use his house picked up the package and took it into the house that's it in terms of direct evidence of my client's possession of that sh and shortly thereafter a relative in law of my client a very big chan c h h e n g a drives up in his honda gets out of his car he enters my client's house and shortly thereafter my license same number and stuff well the st thing you have to do your honor is an fir from well we do not have the whatever it was it was presented to get teller on the six of september that's not in evidence you know the driver's license number because that was made however by your client then received it looked at it it was addressed to right dell not him that's right looked at it but it was addressed and he took it into the house in it and then he ended up leaving the house not locking it comes in while he's gone comes out and then chen eventually comes out with the act that's the effect you're on of then when they pick up your mind there's two or three different stories about what teller recorded as to that driver's license and we have the surveillance picture of the person who actually made that who was not my client the testimony that was it was clear from the just why there was a douceur trial that the person who made that the policy was an african american female now my client so in addition to that your honor there was a mistake an error the expiration date on my client's driver's license is not the same as  expiration date recorded by the town so in order to get to that circumstantial evidence i would suggest of the court that the that the jury would have to infer that it was actually my client's driver's license  deposit and it was just to the court that there is he would not do that or they would just have to i know that that account was an account from the a california operation it's clear you've agreed with that  account was somehow connected to the california operation and somehow this woman who deposited the money that they before had his number so it was made available somehow to him and then his address was used as a house so you think that was just made up by somebody to when i was an accident they sent them at them that i mean to his house i was just your honor and it was a mistake and he took the package and read it and  actually see him there looking at it and he didn't hand it back this is not my package you don't get into the house and then he delivered chang your honour's making inferences upon inference as well the respect that the inference of has to be may st place in the circumstance using some documents which had my clients license number on it but could not have had his picture on it because we know in south carolina that she was depart on rick matter she was depositing three thousand dollars more than three thousand dollars into account which was part of it conspiratorial account that's correct you know and i'll conclusively art of the methamphetamine operations account but the quito she is doing that and the question is ok she's using his number we don't know how we got it it's just a coincidence but the next day his numbers on the license a very same number so set that aside but that is evidence of there is a link there in other words use out of all these links you do you think a person on the street the jury didn't think he was innocent the jury put it all together and since he's right in the thick of well of course in the jury did there but this court even though it's an overview of the denial of the rule twenty nine motion last you look at the evidence and determine if irrational jury could make that determination i suggest as far as the driver's license goes he couldn't because you have to infer that it was actually my client's driver's license with it it's just one of the quince events is it happened to be that account was he didn't know he's not linked to that account except to the fact that that accounts linked to the conspiracy in california to the meth package the meth packages sent to his house and he picks it up and zip looks at it and it so that's the link now the question is the fact that they used his driver's license number to make that posit it seems to me it's a mighty big she just stole it and found it or something and she's making process if there's no connection and there's no entry connection between my client and whoever use whatever it was to make that deposit then i suggest the inference that somehow in the only way that's in all relevant he received the package in other words ok i hear what you say and going back to that your honor the use of my clients address one hundred and ninety nine black street there's no evidence in gate my client had anything to do with that at all and put it on his porch he never said he didn't take it in what he did it's a substance of the state i don't think the officers intended to use the substance of state it's what they intended to use the factory law in other words regardless of what he said what happened they ask questions basically about things they saw and so forth and the law there is something wrong when somebody is doing that they're covering up so that's another little piece they didn't rely on the substance and they didn't care said they're outside on the porch or sets in the house the fact is he was a few minutes before went through some conduct and he lied about what he did you know i would say yes he didn't lie you know i would and the nd circuit in in news right he would cases which i cite an equally reasonable sort of circumstances when you're confronted by law enforcement and also when you understand that you're somehow implicated then you try to get yourself out of even if you knew nothing about what was going on that's exactly what occurred in this circumstance i would submit to the court the the last thing i see my time is up is the doctrine of willful blindness that instruction was given there is no objection to that instruct probability of a fact and then two that somehow my client was ignoring or would be willfully blind to that fact and again my clients on the scene only for about twenty minutes during that control delivery and that's all the think the elements of willful blindness were made out based upon the facts that reduced or thank you is washington poor lisa washington for the united states this court she to farm the convictions at the district court because the government presented sufficient evidence as to its fende its knowledge that he was the government relied on both at trial the issue of willful blindness was heavily cross examined the jury for willful blindness what are you pointing to is sort of the affirmative that was taken to avoid learning the residence it's two thousand and five mr after the package without looking at it without commenting on the face he looked right looked at it and without commenting that the address the return address the sender name as well as the recipient name was not  conclude that if they received a package in the mail that was not addressed to him or her or anybody at the residence stated on the package would it it would be reasonable to expect the recipient no i totally understand that argument i'm sorry i thought that organically to actual knowledge not reckless it's not that you had a chance to find out what was going on in should have taken it but you did it's not you should have known it's that you a fund that if we took some action to sort of turn away from what was happening in front of you so we have cases for instance where someone's driving a truck full of drugs and then they need the garage and the truck loaded we say ok that was the affirmative action you took to avoid finding out what was inside the truck and so i'm just looking for i mean i'm not sure you need willful blindness in this case i want to be clear but i am troubled at the notion that he had plenty of opportunities to find out what was in the package and did it i don't think that's what we mean by willful blindness we're looking for some affirmative act like a no intentional act to avoid finding out what is in the package and i'm just wondering if there was anything like that here you have there's nothing like that specific here mr mr and i thought you were going to say maybe the part where he walked out of his house after his alleged items that were later only later found inside the plastic bag when he was arrested it is also equally relevant your honor to willful blindness in the government's position in the government's is as is the government's position that mr x willfully neglected blindness as to each of the counts of conviction and so stated in its order yawners it's also important when term talking about actual knowledge to examine how the offenses were committed in this or two packages intercepted by the postal inspector to marijuana packages intercepted by the postal inspector in route to one hundred and ninety nine black street one of the st package that was intercepted was it was intercepted knocked over twenty the package bore return address nearly identical to the package nearly identical to the address used by the defendant's brother so at the california address of so at at the time i was the only cooperating defendant who served as a witness for the government at trial mr family say testify that he was with me with the f m and knew them from his from their top the time they lived in california warning to mr pham assess testimony in south africa and multiple marijuana grow operations the person in the video who received it there is no evidence that he saw anything more than the defendant net is a box with his address on it meant so what what did he see else what does he turn his back to you on the government's position is that mr f is certainly blind deliberately blind to the to the events that were going on around him either whether or not these it was the conduct of mr chang or the conduct of his brother so  mr cheney entered mr ass residence or minutes after the package was certainly reasonable to infer that mr mr aft and mr chang orchestrated the delivery and the pick up of the package after it was taken from the after no steps to inquire or learn about the contents of the package the government believes the government believes that it's bennett's burden as to knowledge actually actual knowledge by circumstantial evidence which is this court has ruled time and time again i think that's focused on just what you said last response these questions probably deliberately avoided discovering that meth was in and certainly reasonable for the jury to conclude that mr after the agents he put on the porch and never took it into his residence in an effort to distance himself from the package because he knew what it contained specially combined with the previous deliveries asked during the interviews inspector nicholson specifically asked so whether or not his brother sean half was involved in the delivery or distribution of drugs through the mail so asp response to the postal inspector was i don't know even the evidence that the jury was able to observe and see in regards to mr so involvement in the conspiracy the leadership role that he played it's certainly reasonable for a jury to conclude that had mr shawn not had knowledge were accidentally involved himself in a drug conspiracy that his brother knowing what he knew or knowing that mr seana did not intend to involve himself in a drug conspiracy would have said something different then i don't know and would have taken the opportunity to exonerate his brother had his brother not been knowingly involved in the conspiracy with the sheets to which you want to see that i am almost every time i think there briefly i'd like but i would like to go back if i could to to a couple other the circumstantial evidence and that was discussed briefly in my opening argument as well as with the government's argument and the st is the that the intercepted deliveries there were a total of eight intercepted deliveries not all of them two of them were addressed to one hundred and ninety nine blackstreet the rest were addressed to other dresses on by street two or three to five and i think to ten they all originated though in california day of the delivery in this case i think there was testimony came from the direction of to take to get there but again i was speaking rather on on the issue of the connection of where all these intercepted fact just came from and then their counsel and relayed to right by his royal judge but as i point out my now you have you have two or three people related living in south carolina on the same street if you house or you have relations family relations in california putting together the package and sending it you have coordinated thank you counts i mean it's this is additional evidence on top of the other which we discussed which we didn't scott's earlier which i think a those facts come together and here you have a family sending packages to each other we know the constants contraband the only thing we don't know is who knows what and the who knows what and my client did not know and the evidence of knowledge which you can only infer through circumstantial evidence just in this case simply is not that and the packages were never do these packages were that were sent from california from two thousand and fourteen to two thousand and sixteen were never good and there is no evidence whatsoever to negate that any other packages that were not intercepted were actually delivered to my clients address or any other black knowing they were dressed there so the question is they were we assume they would have ended up there right well that's the something but they didn't and we know that fact because they did not that to infer then that my client had somehow knew that these packages were coming to his house other than the one that actually got delivered is an inference and i would suggest to the court cannot be drawn as to not the false exculpatory statements i talk about the little bit in my opening argument again i would suggest to the court that that fashion not just simply incorrect as to the sequence of events and in this particular circumstance nothing that my client said was a scope it or the fact of the matter is he took the package that's all i have you know unless you are some of the