appellant at trial attempted to argue that he was entrapped into the commission of the crime by another inmate at the jail working at the behest of the federal government alternately the district court refused to submit an instruction on entrapment as a threshold and that would be an inappropriate citation is that case dealt with the wording of the submitted instruction while this case instead deals with the refusal to issue an instruction i believe that the governments did novo correct in the us v young would be the appropriate case in that and i'd just like to clear that up before i move forward this appeal centers around the appellant's continued contention that there was in fact sufficient evidence before the court to every prong in its decision of it because it seems that it seems that the inducement is more more legally than the predisposition which seems more fathi does that does that affect how we look at this not necessarily i think both of those are pretty facty i believe that the district court's main concern as i read it was whether or not the fellow inmate was in fact or could in fact be considered a government agent or working at of the government and i believe that the the district court was concerned that a he was not an employee of the government so would he even qualify as the type of individual that could entrap mr clara and i would argue that there weren't facts sufficient facts that the fellow inmate had known mr claridge from the neighborhood they were acquaintances if not friends he came to the jail and the evidence was that they talked every day that they talked about this case and he testified and made statements that he was working hard to make this work to get cooperation i think there was also plenty of evidence that without question this other inmate had met with the government in january of that year was actively working he testified that he was trying to keep the terms of his cooperation open but if i understand it i mean that with the government i think that january it wasn't him till may or april sometime before he and mr clara were in the same jail or holding that's correct your daughter so does that time that sort of break that connection between the time the government says look you don't you don't have anything and there couldn't he couldn't have told them anything about mr clear out like oh this guy's in here or anything life that i don't believe it does because i think in january is when the government incentivization happened where clearly this inmate believed that he was working for terms of cooperation that he needed this i believe the evidence showed that when he left that meeting in  january he believed he was working for a deal that he was out to find something and that's my argument that he was looking to find anything that he set this entire course of action in motion that caused this when he ran into mr clare and saw the opportunity and said i have this government deal i need to make this work here's the guy to do it with does the government have to know that he's doing this under under the standard i think it's for the jury's determination with the evidence at this trial whether the government knew because there were the terms of cooperation that see he knew who to reach out to in the government he had this meeting whether the jury ultimately rejected that argument that's up to the jury but i believe that's the key point of this appeal is it should have gone to the jury to consider that when you see terms of cooperation what do you mean he did did he sign some kind of proffer agreement or and i think that that should have gone to the jury for consideration little does of the agency require some level of management direction or oversight i don't believe that for entrapment it would i think that for  this case we need to this inmate has to be connected with the government that he was on forty percent of the inmates that we sentence connected to the government of all it is is that we're holding open the possibility that you may cooperate in fact maybe one hundred percent of the people have pled guilty if you walked in with some kind of information about some separate offense some separate crime with those of value they would they would be receptive to listen and i mean you know any prosecutor that i never listen kno think i agree that that's a concern i think this case is different though in that there was a a meeting where this individual was attempting to get cooperation attempting to get his five k left believing that he had terms and looked like he was actively working to create something which we believe was this murder for hire plot again the government would be free closing to call that ridiculous to to attack it viciously i would go the other way and make an impassioned plea that all of the evidence supports it but mr claridge was denied the ability to have the jury consider it because the instruction was refused by the court and i think that's where the error is in this case i'll reserve my remaining time if there are no questions very well obviously the only issue before the court today is whether or not the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury as to the affirmative defense of entrapment and before i begin to respond to mr mr newton's argument i would like to make a further correction if i may to a statement that's contained in mr clarence reply brief i firmly believe that this error in the in the reply brief is completely inadvertent and unintentional but it is nevertheless significant on page five of mr clarence reply brief mr newton writes and i quote appellant cleric testified that petit was talking with him nearly every day about his case and the witness that statement is factually inaccurate in point of fact mr claridge did not testify of trial and that distinction is absolutely critical in conjunction with this appeal because if mr claridge had testified at trial the complection of this case may look very different at this stage as the court has correctly noted one of the factors that's at issue here today is whether or not mr petit was acting as an agent of the government and mr newton has advanced the proposition that mr pet subjective belief whatever that may have been that he might have been working on behalf of the government carries the day the government categorically disputes that that's the case i guess i don't hear his argument to say that it carries the day but at least it get him to the jury to determine whether under this sort of a system where there's a whole lot of incentive for folks facing federal time to work with the government and i think you'd be kind of a stretch to say that the government would be surprised if someone came to like him petty came back and said hey i've got some more information that would be a shocking phone call from the jail to the agent certainly not your honor  and the reason that i raise that issue is that this is an issue that has already been evaluated and decided time and time again and i would point the court to the jones case out of the ninth circuit which i have cited in my brief at page twenty and that case clearly establishes that inducement must be provided by someone acting for the government so a person is a government agent when the government authorizes directs and supervising that person's activities and is aware of those activities there absolutely no evidence that was presented in mr clarence case that during that time period between january of two thousand and sixteen and may of two thousand and sixteen that the government was aware that mr petit was engaged in any activities whatsoever there is certainly no evidence that the government authorized directed or supervised any of those activities do you need the supervision part you would if you could say well if you could at least make the inference that the government would say well you know if we knew we probably had reason to believe that he was going to try to do something but do you need do you need the actual supervision to send to the jury some evidence of supervision your honor the j that that is required do we do we require that and are in the circuit your honor i believe that the cases that have been decided by this court including neil and adam i do stand for the proposition that the government is required to exercise  supervisory oversight as to the individual who is alleged to have been acting as a government agent certainly your honor the government receives information from defendants all the time and as your honor has indicated that is not surprising in this case or any case but whether or not mr pitt mr petit subjectively believed in his own head that he might be acting on behalf of the government is utterly immaterial if he is not in fact acting on behalf of the government and there was no evidence presented at trial that between january and may of two thousand and sixteen that mr petit was ever asked to do anything on behalf of the government that he was instructed to do anything on behalf of the government or that the government was even aware that mr petit was engaging in these activities now as the court correctly noted none of this information and incidentally mr petit statements in that regard are corroborated at least to some extent by the testimony of barbara jones who very importantly testified that mr claridge was talking about murder in this witness as early as the summer of two thousand and fifteen so clearly this was an ongoing effort on the part of mr clarence which offers of further evidence that there was simply no inducement in this case even assuming for the sake of the argument that mr petit was somehow  government agent by virtue of his subjective belief that he was why there is absolutely not a single shred not a scintilla of evidence that there was any inducement offered to mr clay or even in his reply brief mr claridge does not that there was ever any money and he promised any threat and he coersion offered to him by mr petit or anyone in exchange for encouraging him to commit this offense in fact all of the evidence in the case w present that was presented at trial was quite to the contrary the evidence presented at trial was that this plan was entirely of mr claridge design he had spoken about it as long as a as early as a year before this actually  offense actually occurred mr claridge willingly contacted the undercover police officer after he was provided with a phone number and even after mr petty ceased to be involved in these activities mr claridge continued on his own to make contact with the undercover officer mr claridge instructed the undercover officer to visit him at the jail he used another inmate's name in order to accomplish that visit he was using other inmates pin numbers in order to make  calls when the undercover officer visited mr claridge at the jail they spoke through the glass rather than using the telephone that was provided because they knew it would be recorded and finally and perhaps most importantly mr clear five hundred dollars from his commissary account which he provided to his brother with instructions to provide the money to barbara jones who of course later provided that money to the undercover officer as a down payment for the murder of mr wilson nowhere in any portion of the trial or through any witness was there ever any evidence offered that mr claridge was offered any sort of inducement by mr petit or any other person on behalf of the government in point of fact that evidence could have come from a variety of sources as i've it under your theory even that would get the instruction to the jury right because you're saying without some kind of supervision by the government over petty that that is dispositive your honor that i think we're talking about two different periods of time here and your honor asked the question of mr newton who answered it differently than that i will answer it the district court found in its findings of fact that as of may when mr petit wrote the letters of the government and the second meeting occurred and thereafter mr petit met with the undercover officer and special agent hungry of the a t f mr peddie was provided with a an undercover cell phone number and was asked to facilitate a sort of telephone introduction between mr petit and i'm sorry between mr claridge and the undercover officer the district court found in the government concedes that there after mr petit could have and been considered and was a government agent at that point he was acting at the direction of the government he was being supervised by age correct and even post may it's important to note there was absolutely no evidence of undue inducement mr petit was extensively cross examined at trial he was extensively asked about his motivation his subjective belief that perhaps there might be something in the knowledge and supervision of of of the government that they don't show both you don't get there right exactly the inducement has to be offered by somebody who was acting at the behest of the united states doesn't matter what and i think the root case and just very quickly if i case i think is interesting from the standpoint that the facts significantly mirror the facts that we have in this case where there's this third party intermediary involved in the rue case makes it very clear that regardless of what might be offered to this third party intermediary the crux of the analysis is what if anything is offered to the defendant who stands accused of this offense and in this case as in la rue not a single thing there is no evidence whatsoever that mr claridge was ever offered any inducement to commit this crime i see that my time is up so unless there are additional questions i will submit it thank you thank your honour's one morning in two errors in my brief the government is correct that should read petit testified that petit was talking with him clear at nearly every day and there's no question that my client did not testify at this trial but that is a critical section because of inducement i do not agree with the government that inducement requires a an item to be bargained for in fact united states for stanton is very clear it says inducement may take different forms including pressure assurances that a person is not doing anything wrong persuasion fraudulent representations threats coercive tactics harassment the fact that mr petit was speaking with m every day that they had a relationship that can be the basis of inducement the government's for you to argue that that's nonsense but again that comes to the crux of this appeal is that all of these issues agency  inducement pre disposition all had evidence both for and arguably against them but that is a question for the jury the jury is free to believe or disbelieve any of this evidence but it should have been them and not the court that considered it mr claridge a approached this from an angle of having an affirmative defense of entrapment and was denied the ability to present that defense to the finder of fact the district court erred in refusing to give instruction one point zero one on the affirmative defense of entrapment and i'm asking that the judgment of the district court be reversed and this matter be remanded for a new trial if there are no questions i'll yield the remainder of my time