factual determinations that were inappropriate at this stage of the case the proper time to resolve factual disputes between the parties would have been after a trial and if you look at the indictment itself it satisfies the standard that that's what was meant of course by that language an indictment now if there were eighteen about whether that's really what these people did or you know if they have an alternative explanation of course they could present that at trial but in indictment itself the indictment specified that these people were employed as pharmacists when all that is is that they were doing the job in a pharmacist does and that job includes tracking situation i suggest it is certainly conceivable that the government could read and say that they were filling prescriptions on that date with respect to these these  saw because at that stage of the proceedings where they charged which is checking the packing we're checking in the package and basically shipping is is it's not dispensing as a matter of law dissents and transfers clearly confined himself to the relevant allegations of the indictment in determining that i contrary it's the government but it is handy smith also lists the elements which charges dispens list the onus judge but knife fashionable background which the factual background equals dispensing and that's what the judge said he said simply alleging that someone works in the shipping department checking workers and i would say in the context of this indictment which is a very fulsom is checking orders what does it into you all great question because the second basis of the government's argument ok if checking workers isn't dispense well taking orders plus the fact that your license pharmacist a small part charo low level job even though there are license pharmacists they don't then become responsible for the very carrier and manager of record the pharmacists in charge can't be the case in that case no professional lawyer doctor pharmacist could ever work in a corporate owned large firm sending it merely because of our licensure regardless of our job responsibilities we would become responsible for the person in charge i mean that's turning the  done is not a crime i think that does go to the i think that is and analyzed at this stage the at the c of the indictment if the government goes farther and cries those allegations we can just close our eyes to the allegation that the indictment it's  simply was not part of their job duties to verify or check prescriptions or patient names and the mere fact that they were supposed to be checking these orders in the shipping department and may have noticed those names it simply doesn't constitute filling a that there is because i don't understand it being here a dispute about whether this crime actually was committed the question is whether they had the requisite knowledge and when they participated in it and you know we think that they participated enough to be charged as principal but even if you think that's wrong the district court properly recognized that they didn't have the requisite knowledge of what was going on and they were this is this record you know dismissed the aiding and abetting theory  based on its conclusion they were merely present at the scene of a crime but even even the plaintiffs i'm sorry even on the defendant's view of the facts here they they were employees who were participating in sending out these drugs submit that really what's going on here is that there is a factual dispute about what exactly these people did the government did not allege that you know they had no role in these things in all the things that are being argued here and that's something that can be resolved at trial  and we would submit that the case should be sent back for that purpose and that's there any further questions thank you