the morning your honors in may please the court my name is marquis burt and i represent necessity williams i'd like to start with some discussion of the first three robberies the ones on december twenty eighth and twenty ninth of and twelve and the one on january third two thousand and thirteen and the reason i wanted to start with those is because the government wants to gether these robberies by someone other than mr munder when with the the ten that follow and in fact these robberies are very different from those and they constitute about two thirds of necessity ms williams sentence the court already knows the monorail and didn't participate in those first three robberies because he was in jail and said he didn't know anything about it and that the actual robber and it's most likely to robbers in the first three robberies were never proved never identified in ms williams this case so there were no no witnesses to either her presence or her involvement or and this is important her prior knowledge if any that this these robber or robbers were going to use guns during those those call the pattern but the pattern that they said and i will answer that but the pattern that the jury was that was always west bank was always inside a grocery store they take the note and they get the money but in fact it was not that two of these thirst three robberies were of retail establishments that were not involved in the subsequent money when robberies the only one that was a bank was a us bank robbery one of twenty in the last excuse me one hundred twenty in the las vegas area and yes the only thing that tie is them ties ms sessile e to basically any of these robberies but certainly for the first three where money didn't have anything to say was that one of her two phones was in the same vicinity which was a three mile three square mile area of the same three square mile area of the robberies and that in two of those three robberies one of her phones connected with jordan's phone jordan was somebody that both she and her her son or daughter were her kids knew  that wasn't a stranger and there was it was never proved that he was involved in any of those three robberies i'm sorry the government claims something that there was some consistency but god actually i would submit that there was inconsistency because there were for two reasons one is that there were three guns there is a gold gun as a silver gun and a black gun which according to mother alone if it was the same g was a b b gun and in the first three robberies guns were used in the next ten and the model in robberies only two of them involved a gun at least that anyone saw and these were other than their colors these guns were not even identified nobody said well this is a semiautomatic this is a revolver this is a thirty eight this is forty five my point is that giving somebody a note and saying give me the money and then taking the money and leaving that generic that is robbery one the one that is not a pattern and the nor is the use of a gun in some but not all robberies a pattern again that is very generic really the only thing we have is is the fact that one of her cell phones was in the vicinity and again under the rosamond case the supreme court case there has to be evidence that she had prior knowledge that in these first three robberies that the robber or probably two robbers were going to use a gun and you know in the other robberies how far apart and other various locations and they're in various air i can't tell you a number of miles excuse me but there was a map and they are located all over the city of l vegas and also the city of henderson which is near helena what is being i mean these locations are not locations where we enter in any reason to think she was frequenting and they're far apart from each other and sentient i  don't know how far apart from each other they were what i know is that they were all except for one and henderson were in las vegas she lives in las vegas this is a big place it's a big place but it's not that big if you're talking about a three square mile area around a bank which is downtown ok and there are hundreds of thousands of people within those three sport miles again i just want to emphasize because i'm not sure it was in the brief the rosamond case and the  requirement of some evidence some evidence of prior knowledge in the three robberies where mother lynn was not involved and there was no there was no testimony and i do think that the the guns were different and  by the way there were three gun guns used in all three of the first robberies but only two of the next ten so again where's the pattern here in short i just want to say that i don't believe you can lump these three robberies together with the ones that   moving on i don't know if the court is interested in the carpenter issue but it is an issue of first impression in the circuit either case is another circus for  there are around or less than half of them and not in the ninth circuit so for this circuit it's a case of first impression and those other cases do not at least last time i shop or ties i'm probably a couple weeks ago none of them addressed the issue absolutely absolutely as far as i know this is also an issue of first impression i don't think it's been argued before ok now to go to the next issue which is the nine twenty three c is that  the robbery where we we have a lineup of case of cases with priority is that correct that is correct and that's why i made that my third issue because i so if if we thought we were going to get to that issue would have to essentially vacate submission and wait i don't know about faking submission but i think you probably end up waiting i have four separate appeals which three of them are our state pending begay and long and one they suspect they're waiting for long so yes i think that's the case actually i have a minute and a half left i was going to ask to reserve that but i thought court wants to hear more of certainly keep on going good morning may it please the court adam flake of the united states i did want to point out something that came up during opposing counsel's argument and that is one of these robberies did occur all around the las vegas valley in las vegas as well but one also occurred and prim about it which is several miles away i was trying to look it up during the argument but i think it's a place to hold me to this but i think it's about fifteen miles out of town and so one of the first ones or no it was not one that williams and jordan is false and so's we didn't have the next ten robberies let's just pose we don't have the next ten would that be enough when it be enough just by itself but no your honor so it's just because you have a serious robberies not just him once he was involved your honor it i mean we certainly are relying on his testimony i don't know if it totally dropped out that would be a different if it hadn't existed that would be a different case  but the reason that the ten subsequent mat robberies matter is that the description of the gun because that the data is one thing but witnesses in the first three robberies describing a gun that is one of them said it was dark gray or black that's sound like silver and white that's true your honor and i think it bears emphasizing here that the standard of review that the court is applying that witness did say that about the gun and th the jury was free to make of that what they wanted to follow and i stand that that that still goes to the question you're saying there was a consistency about the good but it wasn't just that your honor that that witness is one statement was calling the gun had it just it just goes to reemphasize the point that this is this was a matter for the jury to determine the jury could give what weight they wanted to to the witness the statement that the that the gun used in that robbery was black it could trial that she gave him that twenty two percent or with the pewter colored but those were the guns he testified as to the gun that he used during the ten robberies least correct yes your honor so if she had been indicted on the first three robberies and not the other one time on those first three robberies then you would agree she couldn't have had there wasn't enough evidence there for a jury to come back with a guilty plea i been a hard argument that it was foreseeable to her that the robber would use a gun in those first three robberies if we didn't know that it was her gun from from the from the subsequent robbery studly there or that she was in the vicinity wasn't but i wouldn't go so far as to say there was no pattern at all it wasn't exactly consistent he didn't do the exact same thing in every case but fairly big difference between showing a gun and not showing it was but sometimes he showed it and sometimes he said he had it and sometimes he gestured towards it it's not the most believable person in the world but i agree with you one hundred percent but even then he told the probation he didn't testify that i'm just going through on page five of my brief it talks about the february fourteenth robbery five fourteen he showed a gun that he way fourteen five fifty nine he showed a gun if you're a fourteen seven forty five he showed a gun where somebody was convicted you know what was this was no evidence where anybody evers there's no direct i mean i understand circumstantial evidence is fine but here the circumstantial evidence is and we have explain to the jury without the significance of the cell site data if we didn't have a witness saying explaining what was going on but that combination of the data and the witness testifying in a way that i consistent with the sell side data was i don't think the jury acted irrationally in crediting that of the evidence it a case about g p s tracking a few huichol yes but there were certainly i don't know if they would say they knew that this was going to be illegal but i don't know that they have to know that they have to know that as opposed to have some indirect about answering your honest question but i think that you know that a police officers need to be able to rely on an opinion from the nevada supreme court about the validity of these these types of orders there was no doubt a supreme court order subsequent to joan saying that this was valid i think it would be a massive massive paring back of the doctrine of good faith if our officers can't rely on that a supreme court th never charged she was never charged with that in terms of the fact of a gun no gun was a cover share from anybody and the silver gun the fact that one of the guns in of one of the robberies was so over an another one was a another one with over there are three hundred thirty million guns in civilian hands in this country i don't know how many of them are still there but i'd again that goes more to the generic thing one could have been a revolver one could have been semi automatic we don't know but the only way to get to that issue at all is through minor ones testimony and lastly i just want to say that you know the the idea that there was a pattern between what ms what ms ms williams was involved in the first three versus the later ten robberies keep in mind that in the later ten robberies we're lent somebody who had raped her who had choked her who had beaten her who had sent her to the hospital twice who'd gone to prison twice for doing that who'd gone to prison for filing a false police report against her and who she was so afraid of that the district attorney moved church who a different place to hide her from this trying to rush him but you know you have to be saying that because of all that he is i was a federal prosecutor once during my misspent youth that i would not have called if i had you know that's what they did but my point in that and i know i'm over my time is simply you know if you believe that somehow these two sets of robberies are related essentially a pattern that related to ms williams you have to believe not only that she was telling the first one or two robbers how to rob but she was also directing three of them or hobbs act if i'm right about that that would reduce her sentence by seventy five years plus perhaps some lesser amount on the underlying fourteen years which was for thirteen robberies as opposed to you know fewer robberies