that's not buy or sell or if side eight is trying to sell the drugs and side b is trying to buy them it doesn't matter if they are two or three or four people all on side a so i think the district judge the court on the other person instances i've given this more thought and some deep thought of study of the case law i see the deliberate could actually become ambiguous on one hand it could mean merely the same thing as a basic cell or someone who has counsel foothold here to say look you're on a however this instruction is given there's going to be great prejudice to my client and that produces terrible troubling to me i don't get that argument at all the evidence may differ with respect to hard without a clear requests i mean i guess i'm pushing in my own mind over twenty plain error and explain here i don't think you can i don't think you can get there i see i do believe that where julius weldon apparently one of the ring leaders to this conspiracy refers james webster to buy the drugs from dr henderson if if the evidence in the whole match justified a buyer seller swimming with the g at the end is because it seems to me that if a buyer seller instruction would have been impossible you appropriate with respect to mr henderson it would have been with respect to swing this testimony that  he sold drugs a number of times to mr anderson over about a two month period varying sometimes on credit sometimes not and to me that's the kind of big you a situation in which the buyer sell would be required with respect to baucus testimony i also think it is perfectly appropriate with respect to the james wester controlled body because that that system only was essentially equivocal and consistent as well i think but that report came ready to do the sentencing in this case she indicated that she believed that a mandatory minimum sentence was in the offing her words and in other words efficient but not greater than necessary something changed her mind then goes on to consider the should mean she says well initially sandridge reasonable i was originally drawn to your argument but now looking at it and i give everything and i think a bit more than the than the two  you presented to the district court she said multiple times that he was requesting to deliver the judge gave him an opportunity to clarify it and he said he was deliver he never made an argument that would go to buy or sell or to never said that the evidence to be trying to say maybe not in all cases for all defendants but seems to be trying to say my clients get the same instruction fire instruction they're talking about fire instructions a to get him into the conspiracy and so i think that was his defense and why he wanted the instruction and that he requested the entire time the buyer seller instruction request we we consider that you st  mostly on is how don is that some of the conspirators didn't know him and i wanted to give us a lot of evidence to show i mean i would think a rational jury could have found that he wasn't in the scope of the conspiracy but probably rational jury having the fact that there were seven cooperators only two of them identified at our brief response and more the general that's not necessary i think this is not to need to respond a little more specifically there so looking at those seven cooperate more town from our understanding this was the main methamphetamine dealer and tipping sims in the end which is a small town in this area of indiana that's been really overrun by methamphetamine so i think that factor alone would have supported