the next matter on our calendar is united states versus a skier the  think for me i know the feeling for you this is actually a pretty straightforward case compared with some of the complexity of you've been dealing with earlier my adversary and i we agree pretty much on the basics which is that there was a conspiracy to import drugs from sam's loose  the us the conspiracy involved at the least someone named nikki and said we provided the drugs and there must have been a willing partner he said he had suspicions but no you know in terms of the trusted partner there was no one who ever said to him that he was bringing in drugs and there was no there were no drug related conversations between my client and anyone at least in terms of the evidence that was produced my client offered to give him a ride home from the airport and then he was  actual cargo was going to be but that it's completely implausible that my client was in more or less the same position that one fact which is a witness overheard a voice on the phone to be your client saying he got out already which would imply this was not smuggling cash this was smuggling drugs because you don't get out quick when you're smuggling with all due respect st i don't know that the way should understand that his version was wrong is that money doesn't drug money doesn't flow and that was not our argument it was a disingenuous argument to make to the money and your client never suggested to you i don't want to invade privilege that he was just a guy that got caught in this deal and there was someone else that he was responsive to your honor because i'm an appellate attorney i don't have those kinds of discussions with my clients any of my clients over the past like forty years i really can't say any you do this based on the record i do this only based on the record and based on the record there government the court david goffin from the government i represented the government after the district court was correct in denying the defendants rule twenty nine motion because there was sufficient evidence from which a rational jury co consistent with the defendant having an interest in the object of this conspiracy that's an inference of knowledge that the jury could have drawn that's an inference of knowledge that this court has recognized in other cases where defendants knowledge of the question at the industry there was also noticed you arrived at the airport to meet the courier and there really was no dispute a trial your honor that the defendant wasn't just coming to pick up a courier and that he wasn't just coming to pick up the suitcase that he in fact was going to open that suitcase defense counsel at trial argued to the jury that this case was really like one in which a defendant made an order picked up the package that he ordered opened the package and then was surprised by what was inside and so it was really undisputed ppened to so there i'm really the driver the driver was friends with my client so there's no way i'm saying that because they had this conversation my client knew about the drugs because he had already known they were going to be in the suitcase as opposed to my client knew about the drugs because someone in the community had been arrested and it was the talk among their circle and just as the driver never got in the car my client never picked him up my client was there was no evidence in fact of whether my client was in the car with her and i would people know whether there was no evidence of so possession or that it was intended that he had sole possession my adversary stated as fact but in fact it's never densher void it's possible i'm not saying it's not possible but there's just no  there's no drug conversation well there's no conversation with my client and anybody except for celera and their conversations were all related to arranging to pay for the trip no conversations about drugs and i'm not saying that they talked in code i'm saying there was no conversation and so vera testified that food was a jamaican slang word for money so the fact that they used the word food just supports our position and also just like at trial so there was at this moment do you believe skier's was asking you to bring money and he said yes at the time of trial he still believed that so there i was thinking of bringing in money  it's not that we take a position one way or the other as to what could have been happening our position is simply that all of the that you rely on to prove knowledge and intent were missing in this case there was no position of there was no there were no phone calls he had no drug related conversations with anyone there was no evidence of what his relationship was with mickey if he even had a relationship with mickey or how he knew about it and there was no evidence that he was ever going to be alone with the with the suitcase and has nothing to prove