since i only have three minutes i want to summarize my argument as follows and i'm talking about the first issue in mr cantrill brief that summarization is that the district court took the wind out of my sa for the court an important case from that i searched the called united states be sure and in the united states been shown for this core held that the defendant must be permitted to cross examine the witness sufficiently to make clear to the jury what benefit or what detriment would slow roll and what with trigger the benefit for the death from if the show why the witnesses might testify falsely or to gain a benefit or to avoid the detriment in this instance we had a plea agreement that was written by the government that had important tournaments which basically affected this witticism i'm not talking about one witness i'm talking about a number of witnesses guidelines there was citations to the record but in essence what occurred during cross examination of the first government witness mr graham boies was that the district court prevented me from continuing on and delving into important terms of the plea agreement not only that the district court expressly instructed the jury to disregard the question and the answer that because even ignoring these witnesses the evidence was overwhelming well the evidence was overwhelming as to the videos for example we had a witness that carmen who was an undercover agent with the government with the government you know we have all this videotape testimony but as the court well knows a person cannot enter into a conspiracy with a government witness and i think that if we take the testimony solely that i could have argued that there was no conspiracy because all these other witnesses had you know all this this desire to cooperate with the government as a consequence there was  first i don't think that that era was harmless it was a constitutional error it began with the first witness well let's get back to whether there's an there because of what i thought the judge was saying was that it was objecting to question that said that by testifying the witness would definitely get a lower sentence whereas the witnesses deal would permit the government to make a recommendation for a lower sentence but th the government had to file a motion for a reduction and the only way that they could file a motion for reduction this is mr graham boyce and the remaining witnesses testified in court if the that's the only mr cantrell received a sense of three hundred ninety months which is substantial since the court will knowles i can imagine that it would hurt if we brought this matter up before the district judge been entitled to argue to the jury that if they found she didn't possess any one of those guns she then should be acquitted of that gun count the government has argued that while this was a proper proper because you have  different penalties for different types of guns but this wasn't the issue here that was going to be the same penalty whether they found one gun or three because we were talking about machine guns or anything like that was some testimony from a burn again bear but she was never shown that gun and i asked it's a twenty two that she said that my client had at some time possessed she was ever so shown off photographing that guy she was never shown that gun and she did not particularly identify even a handgun other than she said a twenty two so i don't believe there was any evidence to establish a firearms and the drug fair says she uses a handgun when she's doing those drug deals or she uses the twenty two when she's doing drugs transaction specifically there's no evidence or in the record period to support the district court of the fifth factor said in the district court's opinion that knowledge that you can't trust him to glasgow to meet with jack covers specific purpose of meeting jett covers up in glasgow a review of officer camps testimony and suppression hearing particularly pages forty one forty two reflect the fact that  after the vehicle the decision one the decision to stop the vehicle been made and the vehicle had actually been stopped that officer camp one learned the identity of the driver of the project covers up and was relayed the information met mr covers up at johnny's cafe earlier that day that information was not available to them known to the officers who made the decision to stop the vehicle and after acquired that information to support the decision to stop the vehicle in that regard of a point the court to the united states first mail three ninety four s third twelve seventy one of two an officer was dispatched to check on suspected narcotics activity and was given description of four vehicles he appeared on the scene noticed one of the vehicles that have been described and was the was what officer camp observed at the convenience store and classical which he testified was a brief hello a hand gesture between newton cantrell and individual later determine to be mr covers up and he testified he did not observe any money exchanged hands did not its observer in fact anything exchange chance with between the two other than this greeting in the parking lot of a convenience store and based upon that made his determination that you observe a drug transaction and that was this reasonable basis for stopping the vehicles and so our position there are others that there was no objective reasonable  while and that was on count one for which the jury found guilty and for which he was sentenced to over fourteen years in prison we start with the first princip that if you have equally plausible scenarios presented by the evidence that is both innocence and potential guilt of the offense the government has the burden of proving that it's not in a sense yes my point your honor it is when you have when you couple that basic premise of wroth law with the other principles of law and a conspiracy the evidence in this case was not sufficient community to the other defendants in this case most of the trial the spent focusing in on the some of the other main defendants in this case and it happens to be that my client in cross that he never heard my client's name and two years never heard my client's name mentioned the night before she testified and if she comes into that jury trial and says to this jury that my client on every day basis was coming out and packaging not only not been threatening but marijuana the government had never heard that before and so i think it's just inherently improbable testimony well the final argument i would like to make on make this very brief is the the sentencing issues i have not had a chance to fully discuss the impact of and wine and the book of decisions i would just urge the court to allow  and all parties interested in that suppression hearing and the suppression issue then agreed that the federal court could rule based on the record that had been submitted to the state court in this case the united states  evidence from which this court cannot be held up hold that finding that there was reasonable suspicion because that finding is reviewed for clear error and in this case we have basically what it what appeared to the experienced drug investigating officer investigating the cantrell drug situation a drug deal that had gone down basically right in front of him he was actually on duty at the time and radioed for assistance because he was not in a a specific record to be able to present to you exactly what that gesture was because that hearing took place in front of the state district court and there is no specific description by the court is saying ok you're making a gesture that looks like stop do not invalidate an otherwise proper stop and in this case the testimony is also clear that there was what's called a twenty day sticker in the back window of this vehicle that was being stopped that was impeded from being seen and there was a violation there which the officer stopped him for there was some some conversation some inconsistent statements that were made based on everything else that the other officers knew and then a consent that was given and there was there just isn't an argument that this wasn't a valid who related that when she was in the car with newton cantrell and officer berkley did have that information in his possession before he made that stop and so again the argument that there is no evidence to support the fifth finding that the court he's pulling over for an indicates to him that that's one of the reasons he's pulling him over for but the collective knowledge that was given to officer burkley heightened his suspicions then as he makes the traffic stop and there's all these inconsistent statements about i didn't meet with him well but other people said that you did and that you went to danny's cafe for suffer and completely different stories about where these people have been in the contact they've had with each other but i correct your attention to two issues that were of concern to me  had observed that or at observed a pistol in donna cantrell's bedroom in her residence where large amounts of drugs and large amounts of money were found when the search warrants were executed and that she had indicated that she kept that gun for protection at the point that discussion had been had with bernadine bayer newton cantrell's safe full of a large amount of methamphetamine and approximately twenty five thousand dollars in cash had already been stolen from his residence by james murphy  and and taken from him and his cantrell had knowledge of that and a safe in her bedroom that also have large amounts of items in there so i believe that there was evidence from which the jury could find and they look carefully i believe from their own verdict as to which guns were specifically possessed for what reason because interesting way that to write falls where the other subject of the indictment were actually found in the closet where the safe had been hidden and the jury found her not guilty of possessing those two with the in chance to further the drug trafficking conspiracy but did find her to possess a handgun so i think they looked at all of the evidence that was submitted to them carefully into a reply brief sentence and so the government couldn't respond to it and maybe waiver may not be depending on the circumstances but just tell me what the evidence is on there but you're right and you certainly regard with when she was searched out the jail she also had within her purse then a tire repair kit that was in i believe one of her coat sleeves that fell out during this search that took place after the consent marijuana from donna cantrell for redistribution back where she lived which was on another reservation my memory is that bernstein indicated that that occurred on two different occasions and then there was a fight between the girls in th family and that they were angry over the fact that threesome had gotten the last of the potus and that there wouldn't anymore until there was another run to washington to pick them up does not need to be corroborated in any fashion by a witness as as suggested in oral argument here today this defendant freely admitted when he was questioned that he was the money man for this conspiracy there was also testimony from several of the  perspective because he stole a bunch of money and methamphetamine from a safe in his residence and then later was somewhat shunned by donna cancer all because he had stolen her purse and because nobody trusted him at that point i think again there was sufficient evidence within the record from other cooperate in co defendants and other witnesses to time murphy to both the methamphetamine and the marijuana conspiracy and that his role was not a person who was a mule or who went out to get the drugs but he was in various forms of helping to put up drugs helping to repackage drugs and things of that nature that was submitted to the jury there was also testimony from another witness about going to the residence with  an amount of money that needed to be paid to donna cantrell and that was the person who took that money it was a significantly large amount of money that was actually for a drug debt ms rance i believe was tied  question where's the five hundred count from what i think what the jury decided is that there was a very large amount of methamphetamine in this in this case and they were told that people within the conspiracy could be held responsible talks a number of times about bringing back a certain amount of pound to two pound quantities of methamphetamines there was discussion from iran camp about the amounts that were sold some discussion of the videotapes and how much a gram would be and how much else would be in some of those kinds of things taffy hamilton who was one of the cooperating co defendants also talked about purchasing various amounts and how much money would buy certain amounts of drugs and so i think the jury looked down at more than five hundred grams responsible to janine being rea charged more than five hundred grams and of course we tried this case two years ago in august where there was not you know as much emphasis on specific amounts and the jury then heard testimony from so many people and we her own sentencing but what she told the agents was related to the court are there any other issues or questions that any of the panel members ho in that closet where they were look where those two rifles were in the jury obviously found there was no nexus between those rifles and that safe there clearly could have been no nexus between that safe and the handgun which is out in the living room on the entertainment center and not anywhere near that veteran thank you he admitted he saw nothing exchange between the two people saw no money exchanged no packets but didn't he say that in music experience he thought that the hand gestures were indicating that there was a drug the only other testimony throughout the week long trial was the statements by bernadine very she indicated that on two occasions the testimony of the da to control it given teresa walker drugs there was no