that she willingly agreed did she not to transport drugs from newark airport your honor it's my view that she was she had agreed to she was introduced  someone who could become a courier somewhere in the future he told her he had nothing for her on this particular trip to newark airport he told her why don't you go with the we have a take a ride with him and it's almost like training she didn't have any real purpose there she didn't have any real function there she was just there she was just she was literally alone for the ride your point the requirement is that she engaged in purposeful behavior aimed at furthering the goals of the conspiracy so here you've got to dissipate in the phone calls and in person meeting together with travel to and from the newark airport where she thought that they were picking up what they were picking up was contain she had was with david m o and it was really wasn't even in dream it was an agreement sort of to to to to become a courier somewhere in the future in fact she at some later agreement to do something somewhere in the future and her purpose there for that day was just to be along for the ride home might have a couple of other issues to also i escort to treat them like honor i can i can understand how that could be of you however i don't i don't think that it's necessarily advance planning i think that it's just something that that that huge she was instructed to do for somewhere down the future and it was conditional and it was not a done deal it was not there was no literal meaning of meeting of the minds was just something that could happen or could materialize somewhere government says that that that argument is that challenge is essentially waived because as i understand it of of your clients participation in the in the proffer session where he  dmitted to the to the quality of drug drugs that he's now challenging why isn't that correct i understand that sir and that that that question is problematic for us the whole at the court had already ruled on the weight or had already adopted probation is the probation department view of the way we are not asking the court we're not second guessing a situation factual situation in the diff we're asking this court to view the defendant the way that the defendant is responsible for only in terms of what he read to as opposed to what was involved in this overall conspiracy transported from from california david a mother cooperate or ask the defendant can you go take a ride out to california and bring back three kilos of heroin and it's i can't do that can't take ten days  can't do that it's not something i can do months later he said i have a small i have a small small deliver if you pick up from the airport it's not going to be that much but can you pick it up and that's the one that he defendant while the law says that he he is responsible for the weight the court can certainly consider that this was a something that was never even agreed to and i think something that never happened and he in fact only agreed to do something that was much less at a much later date where she and agreed with les to go up there and she testified on page three twenty nine of the transcript she actually drove the car from harrisburg pennsylvania area up to new york with her in a harrowing career she says on page three twenty four three twenty nine transcript he says i said maybe i should give it a try i really want this money and he says i said fine and these are conversations with a