evidence at trial to sustain their convictions mr tilley was charged along with several others in a multiple count conspiracy having to do with robbery in a series of robber any other gun count but the jury convicted mr teeling with respect to having been part of the conspiracy to do the first robbery and based on harm that they also convicted place the planning primarily took place in the bedroom the the gang leader if you will mr clarke testified that he did not recall again some a discussion some characterized as a little bit the evidence is not solid that he was in on all the discussion he made over her parts of it but certainly the evidence was not  deliberately that mr t was a member of the gang that one of the responsibilities of the gang was destroy what kind of dirt they could commit in order to prove that we're going to be part of the game and that all of the people who were there the trainer had some either directly filiation or some in didn't didn't accept it well and white why should this have been taken from the jury because knowledge of the robbery is going to take place even if even if we get past the positive evidence as to what his involvement in discussions were and how much was even if we assume he heard the entire discussion and planning which the evidence doesn't support that but let's assume that knowledge alone over obvious going to take place and mere presence doesn't clark agner who came up with the plan so that's what they're doing there we're doing it watch for excitement now the cases that this circuit has issued and decided that's not enough mere presence there isn't enough robbery well but that's the purpose of the this court is to view the evidence separate and apart from the things that happen in trial they influence juries and say is a sufficient i think of the cases  robbery didn't do much and again the case that is most guidance on this is hoskins and hoskins the court stated that in order to sustain a conviction on a gun count was some didn't actively have a gun provided whatever that they were there found vicariously liable they must have had a sufficiently high level of involvement in the robbery to sustain a if you go through the record there is nothing in the record to show that mr feely sar or knew about a gun before the robbery took place there is but that what hospice turns on also besides foreseeability is what was the testimony trial didn't show was that had knowledge or start going to trail or some other people said they saw got the trailer but they didn't say when and not everything that evidence does not show that tilly saw the gun at the trailer i mean it that type of them it simply is not in the record but when we get to the aspect of whether we have a sufficient role as to now that he did not that the evidence simply does not sustain the task from the it's not i just want to know in passing that the government does not argue aiding and abetting with regard to gun count they're hanging their hats holding on by curious liability so that's not even an issue with regard to briefing that the evidence on that is not sufficient because there is not evidence that he committed an act in furtherance of it with respect to that the last two issues in the brief briefing have to do with good morning your honor does the court have questions would you introduce yourself to the rest of my richard friedman with the appellate section of the criminal division