please i have a question so he products of th amendment at the district on advice of counsel the district court denies motion on the basis that he has it  e his th amendment right and there is some possible jeopardy a so where did you hope to accomplish by putting him on the stand i sounds to me right now you  wait it sounds to me like you want to put him on the stand so he will take the th amendment you don't have any right to do that well then if i may yes now you ma do you have any other arguments we understand the point you're trying to make now ok any other questions now ok thank you well here from your op me please the court this is greg conner on behalf united states now it's no surprise and new secret that a sufficiency challenge is often times a bit of a long shot that's what this court testify in light of a reasonable fear of self incrimination now briefly regarding sufficiency as we point out in our brief murray ells testimony alone does most of the work here she testified that forty pointed a gun at or and forcibly took her car as a very young son was in the back seat that's according and when combined with the government certification which were exhibits nineteen any in one thousand be showing that the car  more his distinctive characteristics so pamela menna describes that he had a very distinctive rat tail that she remembered and then the government introduced evidence doubt i don't think under the supreme court's cases we can say that the supreme court has said that there can be acquittals on some counts but not all counts for reasons of compromise misstate confusion what what what does it mean on the island there's some subjectivity but the summary we used in our brief is that it's it's a person with lighter skin tone than a black person and  identified herself as a black person and then she pointed to a law enforcement agent and who was white and said that it's in between our skin tones and similarly these victims describe forty similarly when they were and the jury could assess those descriptions when they were testifying for he was in the courtroom so the jury was able to hear their descriptions and observe forty and determined that he was the perpetrator it least of the the one carjacking so and not only that they both placed him in kind of on us in a small window of time on the same night  methods of carjackings were similar and this court set in alaska as a punk which was i think a weaker case because the victim in the last is appalled they didn't wasn't able to see the carjacker he had a gun in his back both victims here were able to view forty they both identified him based on seen his face so i think and taken as a whole there was more than sufficient evidence to to convict forty of the maria carjacking and not only that something that this court has emphasized has been repeatedly decided is that when there is sufficient evidence that is the  minutes remaining that's the requisite protection against your irrationality and some perceived inconsistency is just not reviewable on appeal that's not a bona fide appellate claim so i think based there was a bit of concern so st of all there was some discussion about the obvious fact that vasquez did not want to be considered a snick a snitch he worried about his safety in  vasquez was pleading guilty so the district court allowed the determined that he was knowingly pleading guilty and then the district court when for to try to call  vasquez as a defense witness the district court said that there were several options for how that could be how he could risk self incrimination and focused specifically on perjury and i think this is consistent with this court's rationale in the circle oks in the circle ok's the codefendant file an affidavit centrally saying the main defendant had nothing to do with the drug sale and conspiracy in general court agreed with the district court that that risk a perjury charge because that was contrary to be evidence at trial serially here he made a statement that essentially was that he didn't know forty and they didn't commit this carjacking together and again with all the evidence we alluded to with sufficiency that statement is contrary to the evidence and it's at trial now really quickly because this is vasquez's right and so it's not just i think it's not just an assessment this court has to make based on what the district court said is our position and we include there is a lot more play here this court has stressed in the past that the risk of further incrimination can come from substitute charges by the federal department of justice it can come from thrust of what i'm asking you did it cause you pause did it cause you to explore the possibility that he was not the code defend reasons and actually i think it's the castro case where this court quoted the district court giving the variety of reasons that a defendant might make this statement and this court listed  people knew each other and other evidence other than the testimony of the victims i think i think the the evidence is primarily the testimony of the victims and we know that vasquez was in the car because you left his underwear in there and there is d n a evidence from that and both victims testified that they saw forty and that forty was one of the carjackers and i think that's enough of a connection  thank you that concludes argument in this case attorneys say yes and attorney connor you should disconnect from the hearing at this time