confrontation clause violation the insufficient evidence of the concealment of purpose or design for the money laundering count and then time permitting the argument that a constructive amendment of the indictment occurred when the grand jury charged a single overarching money transmitting business and the government at trial or its conviction on the basis that mister singh ran his own if the court has questions about the other claims of course i'm half answer to the confrontation clause violation the district court said enough for you to make all the arguments you wanted to make about bias i think if i recall his his denial was less then you know full throated it was kind of i didn't understand so it's seems like you left the opening for arguments you were trying to make now you know your honor i respectfully disagree because there was no evidence about what actually took place in that meeting allowed into the record so all we have is defense counsel saying you know did you try to hire somebody to kill this witness and him saying well i didn't really understand and i was afraid you were going to take my money this very kind of big question so the jury might have thought the defense counsel was just throwing something out there and and that's something that the supreme court has noted can happen if you're limited to cross examination i know and it was just not it and so so they're limited to you know just that evidence whereas if you had this audio recording in the record and if you were allowed to impeach this witness with this audio recording that shows the lengths that this just gushing went you know this is not it's a very different flavor it's a very dim flavor and because it went straight to bias and because it wouldn't have taken much time because it was critical impeachment of a critical witness it should have been permitted and even under an abuse of discretion standard there was an abuse of discretion here and you know prohibiting that  the trial judge did not have discretion to preclude any meaningful inquiry into an order area what was i what was the quality of constitutionally required to do in the course of managing this proceeding i don't i don't quite follow you on the trial judge was constitutionally required to permit the introduction of extrinsic evidence as to bias and if you look at davis the alaska that actually is really directly in point of this issue because there the supreme court made the point that it was not enough under the confrontation clause that the defendant in that case was allowed to ask the witness about whether he was on juvenile probation the court said very clearly the error occurred when he was prohibited from producing at extrinsic evidence to show that and that's exactly the same case here you know the court could have limited how how many witnesses were called exactly how much evidence could come in how much time she wanted to spend on th issue but not to permit any evidence to be brought in about this murder for hire scheme of a government witness that that was that violates on the competition clause that the th amendment consideration ok great thank you so unless the court has other questions about this claim i thought i would move on to the concealment claim of the insufficiency of the evidence of  gives rise to the money laundering charges have been designed at least a polar part to conceal or disguise the nature location source ownership or control of the proceeds of the unlawful activity that is that are being transferred you know you have to code the language you're at the monikers you had the delivery to folks you know in parking lots who are not of the same you know ethnic group that you would expect if this was a straightforward hall transaction you have testimony that your client knew that these were drug program proceeds you also have the misrepresentation of misrepresentation to the law enforcement of you know both effect and purpose well all of the evidence that your honor has mentioned and all of the evidence that the government wants to show is that the people who were moving this money wanted it not to be discovered you know they think they went to great lengths and i don't disrupt butte because you it was your money and he knew it was drug money but that is actually not enough and in an inquest you are the united states supreme court it was a very similar case there were and the lengths that they went to in this case were slightly larger but there were led in there were actions taken to hide the money that was being transported in that case drug money to get back to drug cartel members and the supreme court said it doesn't matter how the money is transported it matters why in that case it was being transported to you know per cent profits to the drug traffickers and that in this case it's exactly the same thing how they did it doesn't matter it's why and why the transfer of this money was as every government witness said expert and lay as the government charged in the indictment and as there's no there's no evidence to the isn't that evidence that a jury is entitle to consider when of cogitating on on purpose i think it i think it it it all that evidence does it's described the ways that people try to avoid detection it doesn't describe the purpose and the only evidence on the record and this includes circumstantial evidence of the purpose of these transfers was to get this money back to the drug contacts in california wants to know that their drug it's drug money of all these machinations are and and furtive actions a basis for know it's drug money what else is the purpose well that's i mean this this court is bound by quaoar and that's exactly the fact one hundred inactivates by the supreme court said that's not enough to show purpose or design i think all of those things also you know and below mister singh disputed that the evidence was was sufficient to prove that he knew the funds were derived from anyone illegal activity i'm not taking that position here that evidence was sufficient to show that he knew there was something going on you know whether he just thought that paula was illegal like it was in india where there was a sufficient to show that he was the government's evidence sufficient to show that he in your view to show that he knew it was drug money yes  i believe the evidence no and the evidence was there was testimony that he told he was told it was drug sold in a context where we're given all the entrances however it doesn't matter from this claim because that's not enough so he could know that the that the the proceeds are drug money he could know that they're taking all these steps because they don't want to get caught that does not mean i don't that there is a concern  t purpose meaning that's why these funds are being transferred or that he knew of it and then there's sort of the rd you know we're going to close even the port he personally participates in the concealment how can you say he doesn't know of the concealment purpose i don't follow that well and i think what i was just going to get to kind of goes to our point is that even if the court believes there's a concealment purpose and even if the court believes that he knew that that was one of the purposes driving these transfer that's not enough and it has to show that he had the specific intent to further that concealment purpose and here you know he really was a courier and for most of the period during which just scheme was taking place there is no evidence that he had any you know any desire for anything to happen other than him picking up money at point a ticket to point b and his so that the evidence of specific intent is just totally lacking buddhist i won't bet for a very powerful most of what lots and lots of propositions in criminal cases approved bugs are of them central evidence oh i agree with that completely your honor i just think that in this case the evidence about his role didn't support that finding district court did not abuse its discretion in precluding extrinsic evidence about why it was supposedly her for hire plot and i'd like to begin a list looking at exactly what it is that the district court permitted and exclude  st of all this is not a situation where cross examination on a topic was entirely excluded one of whom was cross examined on this point the defendant asked him about the meeting that he had had with the undercover agent asked about whether they had met whether he knew that tara in the supposed victim was cooperating and then asked which one would  tomorrow why in the world would he be entitled to teach why would busy you ever so i have two answers to that your honor and st i'd like to finish my answer to what it is that the district court excluded the district court did not exclude evidence of bias biases relationship to a party that might give that witness incent an incentive to slant testimony toward the government the just report did not exclude questioning about whether the witness believed to have he might be prosecuted for this murder for hire whether he had been promised that he would not be prosecuted for this murder for hire whether there had been any discussions there was no there was no ruling from the district court precluding any of those questions about bias about whether there was some fear of if he prosecuted son well all of those areas they were not precluded the defendant simply chose not to ask about that so all we are left with is a mini trial about whether this is a very act that the government did not believe they did not believe occurred whether it district court said look the witness isn't isn't disputing that these events happen it's the interpretation of these events that is problematic because the witness says i didn't understand what was going on i thought i thought they were trying to steal my money i thought there was a hit on me and there was no dispute here that the witness ringback was testifying through an interpreter there was no dispute that he didn't speak english and there was no dispute that this meeting took place in english and there was no interpreter there so to have a mini trial which was not relevant to bias it may have been relevant to credibility in some you know somewhat tangential sense in this what we cited the hayes case because again the inference that's being drawn here is not about bias that was not precluded what was precluded as well if he wanted to reduce his sentence badly enough that he were avoid a sentence badly enough if he'd be willing to murder this witness there and he would be also willing to lie to about the defendant to reduce  already had that information the truth he already knew that he was in prison that he had been approached the time he was in custody back flop orating that he clearly was looking to reduce his sentence that he had made these  the defendant incriminating statements about the defendant for the st time when he was in custody so we're talking about a marginal difference here and that's the point that he's me there's not an abuse of discretion when the jury really has the ball of the information about why they might question the credibility of the witness and this little extra bomb it was not an abuse of discretion in light of the huge distraction that such a mini trial would have been and not reviewed for abuse of discretion what what's your what's your position on that well st of all our position is it should be reviewed for play near because the confrontation clause issue was never squarely raised in the district court i looked through the transcript and i did not find the word bias used there there was one reference to a confrontation clause as you know i have a right to confront witnesses and impeach their credibility in the government's view that is not only how many do you need well it's not a question of how many references it's just that reference really clearly defined the issue that is on appeal now which is was it was the confrontation clause violated by precluding evidence of bias and in our view that issue was not squarely raised but under any standard review there is three factors we look at under the confrontation clause how how relevant the evidence was and and again for all the reasons that i've described this was not an extremely relevant  inquiry and we wouldn't rely in part on the mccoy case and in there this court said when you have a cooperator who is continuing to engage in activity in violation of their but the government is unaware that that informant is dealing drugs without authorization and there's no evidence that the government overlooked it in some way as a benefit then it goes only to credibility and it is not an abuse of discretion to exclude it and that's the situation have here the nd factor is whether there are strong countervailing interests and they're absolutely worth here because this was this would have been a huge time consuming distraction to go through all twenty nine dollars of these  parts of the of the meeting which was over an hour if it was at least an hour and fifteen minutes according to the part of the record that we do have which is the defense counsel's description of these twenty nine dollars passages that he wanted to review and then we would have to have f b i agents come in and give all of the rest of the background of the investigation and why in the end there was just nothing there what happened was i think the government did the made i mean i think there were some references to the fact that he you know he knew about the investigation i  don't think there was anything specifically in the record showing that he knew that he wasn't prosecuted but again the district court never precluded that evidence the district court never precluded the defendant from asking where you ever promised you wouldn't be prosecuted were you afraid you would be prosecuted did you try to negotiate whether you would be prosecuted the district court did not exclude any of those statements or any of those questions it was only trying to prove the actual event through extrinsic evidence that the district court excluded and you know the rd factor in the confrontation clause is whether the jury had sufficient information to assess credibility and the government's view salient fact which was that he was trying to reduce his sentence by cooperating was already before the jury but i'd also like to spend a few minutes talking about why even if there was a confrontation quasi or it was harmless because outside because this was dangerous work that was corroborated in speeds through surveillance of the defendant in parking lots of meeting him meeting in cars moving cars making money drop offs and pick ups and parking lot can take it from anywhere and that was very important because remember in the black hawaii we were meeting people in parking lots but within our own network it's ok for the defendant to come to my house with respect to the knowledge of you legal source that was also in spades ready concealment methods the burner phones the monikers the huge amounts of cash eight hundred thousand dollars going to goree a white person in defendant's ledger the fact that he lied when he was caught we have a wiretap that you are a twenty where the defendant tells tara and they're discussing some some  hall was his knowledge that this was drug money cooperate to move the evidence of that was or was a call from overwhelm well st of all with respect to knowledge of the drug store as for money laundering at trial the government only had to prove that the money actually derive from specified unlawful activity and that the defendant knew that it was some type of unlawful activity but not specifically drugs that being said there was substantial corroboration of mister awad was testimony that he told defendant it was drugs because terence testified that why we told him the same thing and then there were two wiretap calls that were also significant one was suture on the wiretap and remember suture was the defendant's uncle who brought him into the conspiracy and after the arrest where and the other conspirators are trying to figure out what to do about the purpose so the question is not whether the traffickers needed to get money to l a to pay their suppliers the question is the why question is why use hold while the transfers to do so and there was overwhelming evidence that the reason to use a while a transfer was in part to conceal a list of attributes which which one i think i think many of them i think source nature location again we're talking about you know we have expert testimony looking at all of the aspects of how all of that are attractive to drug traffickers  multiple layers through which the money passes the anonymity of the transactions the lack of regulation and then we look at the aspects of blatz awadallah that are present here that the huge amounts going beyond the the i don't  to the effect of the transaction as being any different from if the defendant had just you know flown up to canada or taken physical possession of the money and had driven it go and tell himself and deliberately whomever you that the drug cartels designated as the recipient from a money laundering standpoint there's no difference between using this this means and the transfer versus just a regular is we drive up to canada and you physically have the money and you drive it from one dollar place to another there's no break in the in the in the possession of that that money the whole point of the whole law is that if it breaks it will at least one dollar of the ways that a wall is designed to conceal is that if it breaks that chain it doesn't that is that's my point it doesn't the money the money goes in dirty and it comes out dirty on the other hand and everybody knows where the money chain from it's drug proceeds and it's being used to pay for drug deaths and that the whole purpose of the transfer is to make sure that the recipient knows from came and what its source was so there's no concealment of any of the a list of characteristics in the statute from what i can tell well your honor in every money laundering case you want the recipient to to get the money i mean this to me this is no different  know the bottom money laundering cases where you discard is something about the nature of the money usually because you want to get drug proceeds into the legitimate financial system so that you can use well  one type of money laundering but that's not the only type of money laundering and this is really not very different from what happened in like will swear you have a bribe money and it goes through a bunch of accounts and then it's used to pay off a mortgage what works the same way because you have money that's given to somebody in one place and then in another place you have a lot of people collecting money from various sources and delivering them to the ultimate recipient and that makes it very difficult to trace the ownership of the location the source of all of these of these drug proceeds because the money isn't going there's no record of it the money isn't going anywhere directly it's going through this very indirect was under the transportation prom this case is under the financial transaction problem and even though that that idea that you need to have the purpose and not just the effect applies the problem in question are is why was the money being transported across the border to mexico and the only reason for doing that was to pay the traffickers here we're looking at the financial transaction and and is this financial transaction because it wasn't cheaper rate and it's safer that's why they do it i thought there was testimony that if you wanted to pay somebody to drive this is not a money it would cost a way more than the small percentage that was being charged for the  why it's designed in use to conceal because there are there there are so many layers in it that are that are designed to conceal ready and again and we saw that with the the burger phones and the monitors and the use of the tokyo that show that defendant was was aware of this design and you know those cases is analogous to this one and has the additional evidence that was excluded went to the same basis for the bias all the evidence had to do with this witness's immunity agreement and here it's difference here he had an immunity agreement that he now has the government points out but the additional motivation of these this murder charge hanging over his head didn't come in that case is really different from the sun and then mccoy the government did not know about these activities that the witness continue to engage i here the government obviously did because the f b i investigated and put an undercover agent into the situation this case is much more like ray where there was continuing legal activity of the witness and the government knew about it and that case this court held that there was there that the government argues that plane error should apply to the competition plus claim the defense raised the confrontation clause claim below the government acknowledged it referring to that and its right to confrontation the defendant referred to us repeatedly at page twelve of the opening brief relist you know the the numerous instances where the defendant talks about the bias in this case didn't always use answer what do you make of this arsons argument that the judge did not preclude your missings counsel from asking questions about bias directly did you know about the investigation were you worried about being charged so how does that not solve the problem trial and that's exactly what happened here once he made that denial and defense counsel was prohibited from introducing any evidence to cast doubt on it there wasn't any anything to be gained by defense counsel asking whether this witness was afraid of charges for something he denied even happened and so just so that i'm clear it's your position that this particular ruling is not reviewed for abuse of discretion that's right your hon its investigation i maintain again there's nothing in the record indicating that he knew the investigation and that and the only evidence of what he was told in the record is that you are fifty five dollars and this is defense counsel i believe final point i want to make is just on on the issue of homelessness and the confrontation class claim it's the government's burden to prove harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt so the fact that the government can point to certain evidence and say there was there was remaining evidence in the record it's not a sufficiency standard so beyond a reasonable doubt standard it doesn't matter whether the evidence is sufficient and two things i think that the government has never adequately addressed or its heavy reliance on one of us testimony in closing and the jury's defense counsel to ready you know take an hour or a day a week of questioning the witness on bias or something like you know your honor at the trial court