morning i'm nancy collins here on behalf of mr lay mr lee was convicted of among other things several cans of manufacturing marijuana and two counts of maintaining drug involved premises these counts should overturned due to insufficient proof or the essential element of his knowing intentional involvement in the office of proving its full scope now this involves three properties that mr lee has owned for some time as rental properties initially the police found evidence in these three separate rooms that marijuana there had been or was actively growing in these homes and you're not challenging your conviction for conspiracy or for the one count trial evidence that's sufficient to support those counts go against your argument that there's insufficient evidence for the count that you are challenging well you take into account  individual behavior the proof that we're focusing on challenging here as to the specific homes and mr at least the evidence of a specific knowledge an involvement in those and while you can in the maintaining of the drugs count involved the same home they know that they did they did it and maybe it's a fine line but argument is that line is simply crossed on these counts in the homes growing the marijuana so the government had indicted mr lee and the jury was instructed on accomplice liability and as our supreme court recently clarified in rosemont aiding and abetting requires a state of mind extending to the where there was evidence that she was having people instructing them on growing the marijuana actually participating in the growth inside the home and supplying them with the equipment that they needed  propensity for one home say for example they can simply say well he didn't want to must have done it these other times even though you can look at this intel of the evidence it can't be based simply on propensity or simply on speculation  and here you have mr lee in these various homes and not going to repeat all the evidence that was put in the briefs but essentially in one home encounter you in the rented house there are a lot of marijuana plants inside but  wasn't evidence of mr lee's actual involvement or presence the person who came in testified who the government accused of being the one who had been growing those the marijuana plants said denied any involvement city and he never did any of that stuff marijuana actually being grown at the time there was a person who came in testified saying he had been received written instructions to grow trees in the home and that mr lee had come to the house a few times but it was  association with with with other felons and in this case which would involve his his spouse looks like your opening brief did not reference  prior counsel yeah yeah i wasn't involved the trial proceedings at all but there were there weren't any objections there weren't wasn't really any discussion by the government either or or the court and no was arguing that these conditions were in any way important or relevant and and she been given the opportunity i'm sure she would have addressed it in fact counsel if lawyers had gone to this judge and brought it to her attention it's very simple to modi is since given mr lee's particular posture as a medical doctor and even if he's not actually practicing when releasing he where do you want to help and you know help treat patients in some kind of health care health care facility which would be the obvious  employment he could find even if he's not a medical doctor he could you know provide that level of care and help a medical doctor depending on how is life things that this is it at the at the end of this the day i don't know about that  certainly shouldn't be in violation of surprised release if you've given care to people even if they're people who are actually themselves using illegal drugs or something like that we don't want to put him in that place where he can't you know have employment or be unsure about the your honour's finding my name is sarah vogel i'm an assistant united states attorney here in seattle and i represent the united states i think i'll address the supervised release conditions first with regard to the conditions that mr lee has challenged which would preclude him from associating with a felon of course this was not raised and i think it's clear that it wasn't raised because it hadn't been an issue throughout the whole pretrial period when mr lee and his wife had been residing together for over a year pending trial well the allows contact with his wife yes and that was a modification that was made with the agreement of the parties when it was raised with the court and the probation officer without any concerns so i think the point is that this is an issue that could easily be modified and and addressed at the time of the supervised release in the future so you agree that it has to be remanded in light of us versus will child or you're just agreeing that it has to be remanded you know i'm agreeing that this a type of modification that could be made at the time of the supervised release by the judge at the time that supervised release commences oh and i believe there are several connived circuit cases that talk about how these types of limitations and exclusions in the details of how the supervised release will be implemented based on a particular offender's family situation such a can't the things can be modified as needed at the time in order to be workable so what a lot when one is his release date i believe it is in two thousand and eighteen or nineteen nineteen so even though there's an objection you're suggesting we do nothing and just hope that it's cleared up at the time i'm suggesting your honor that since there was no objection at the time before the district court that when the time comes for mr lee to be released if he is still married to ms believe if ms bluey hasn't been deported if he's still in a position to live with somebody who is a felon and it's somebody that the court and probation officer believe should be accommodated then that the court has the power to make that accommodation at the time but but i guess let me just it's interesting  that talk about not nonsocial challenges on the basis of speculation about how the imposed conditions when there was no objection might fit in with currently unknown conditions in the with regard to with a court like me to address these sessions the have isn't evidence issue well i will just say that when viewed in the light most favorable to the government and declining the defendant's invitation or simply ignore some of the witness testimony as this court must there was more than sufficient evidence to support the jury's guilty verdicts on the five challenge counts and i would note the contrary to the defendant's characterization this really was not an aiding and abetting liability case while aiding and abetting was one of the alternate theories of liability that was charged and the court the jury was instructed on it the evidence at the cape as it was presented to the jury did not rely primarily on  aiding and abetting theory in fact the evidence presented of the case both in support of the conviction for conspiracy and in support of the convictions for the actual substance of manufacturing counts in the mean taking drugs premises counts establish that the defendant mr lee was the primary leader of this group of individuals who were involved in marijuana grow that he set up the growth that he was in charge of the three grows and that while he necessarily may have aided and abetted those people he hired to help him and they necessarily aided and abetted him he was personally and directly responsible in the grove all three of the rows that were committed in or that were put into place in furtherance of the overall conspiracy and the evidence of this comes from the corroborated testimony of the coconspirators those are the two tenders at the shoreline house who each independently test i had that mr lee put the put them in there supervise them and came over periodically to check on the progress of the grow and to and actually physically helped out with some of the labor including moving plants when they grow but two full indicating that he was well aware of the quantity of the plants at that location and then move them to another location where they were later found so all of this evidence along with the financial records the business records such as the u haul documents and then the documents that were found in the defendant's home the lists of shopping let the shopping lists of grow equipment the receipts the invoices and then the cover up with the fake leases and the fake leases for apply to all three of the growth houses the ranch and fake lease that jack tran testified was fake was false he never signed that never paid rent the marysville fake lease that kept todd testified he was asked to sign by just the defendant mr levy even though he didn't read english and had no idea what it said and the shoreline lease that