used in this case what error in curtis testifies for revisiting that recent rather recent consideration when we look at the curtis slightly different perspective under the stored communication act the government didn't just go out and grab cell site data they had to go through a warrant process there was a certain man procedure the government did so in this case and then of course carpenter comes along and says that's not enough but what i'd like to hear from you is what additional protection do you think a warrant would give as opposed to the kind of that one got sensed there might be some concern in introducing this evidence they went out and in fact were able to obtain a warrants that had been issued on a showing of probable cause which is a higher standard than what the storage communication act not to rely on the government's last minute warrant so i'm just going to put that to one side for the moment that on the facts of this case can we look at that and assess whether this would have been probable cause because what we're trying to figure out under the leon good faith exception is whether there's any further deterrent value to keeping this information out and in curtis we said if you've jumped through all the hoops of the store communication act in the record  then you know that the government didn't know at that time that it was operating in a system where that particular set of statutory procedures were not going to be enough and we  if you go back and you look at the fact that this information was so nearly exact in terms of surveillance that there should have been pause as to whether or not the government should have known it should get the supreme court court was so concerned about the near perfect surveillance that this cell site location information provided hundreds of points of location per day it could provide the government nearly you could track the person that removed that it wasn't objectively reasonable to conclude that they did not need a warrant to go out and track these individual defendants so mr garcia are you going to address  owes arguments with respect to the conspiracy to engage in money laundering yes i'd be very interested to hear what you have to say about that yeah thank you roger if i can address both the money laundering a the conspiracy to distribute drugs because i think they're they're similar but i but out address the money st so the evidence here was very circumstantial in terms of whether or not jose man money laundering obviously is directly related to the government's position that it was to traffic or conspire to traffic narcotics right and i or assume that we are talking about the version of money laundering that is intended to promote the continuation unlawful activity because i see nothing these arguments of the designed to conceal or disguise ties yeah i think that's what it has to be your honor but but the skinny that with respect to that money laundering and the connection to the crime the evidence in the records in connection to the crime we don't believe there was sufficient basis or the case thought that the evidence was enough to show more than buyer seller that there is you know fronting and there was cooperation the world sorts about it does that finding automatically mean that the government wins on money laundering too or is there some distinction you no i don't think it does i think there is a distinction because you're you're looking at the conspiracy through two different types of lenses as you mentioned on the conspiracy to traffic we look at things paying up front for the drugs we look at warning others of police activity concerted efforts to protect the conspiracy to keep moving the drugs on the money laundering so the only thing we have are some bank records and some testimony that there was cash presence we don't have anything else upon which the jury could reasonably find a basis for farai that there was a conspiracy on the part of jose manuel and anyone else rather than a buyer seller relationship of course so we will generally have any conspiracy where we have two members of the conspiracy a grain that one will deliver drugs to the other and then will receive payment at a later time after those drugs that and so there's a level of trust here there is no specific evidence as to this heightening of the payments and the delivery of drugs with respect to indicative of a conspiracy to give him those drugs and then have him later pay we see the transactions or inferences of those transactions but we don't know specifically what those payments for the drugs in terms conspiracy here at all in fact i think they it's an opposite whether they support the conspiracy or they were just they support our view that he was merely a buyer seller you are just about out of time mr garcia so i it pleases the courts i would like to make two arguments one is a joint argument the benefits all of the appellant's concerning the district court airing by rejecting denying the motion and lemon they pursue regarding regarding the joint issue it is our position the district court of views this discretion that the homicide evidence that was at mit it was not relevant as evidence to show that a conspiracy to move potential for abuse by admitting evidence of gang affiliation to substitute for evidence of conspiracy in a narcotic matter but it is our position that just recorded not heed its own warning  position then that the supplier was just flat not a part of this case they weren't trying to use this in a low a cartel or you know barrios moreno for anything really or do you think the government did need to complete the story like why did you change from supplier number one to supplier number two well your honor i don't think the evidence necessarily ties these the fende inst to that part cartel showing that they wanted or that some of the appellant's would have along to people that are not connected to this case to have their life be spared and to be released from kidnap does not show that these  appellants were doing business with a particularly the son of a cartel it's our position that when the district court gave the the so called limiting instructions to the jury the court said i'm going to quote exists to support the conclusion that any of the defendants on trial participated in the kidnapping and murder of these individuals had their names come up in any other context at the trial those  once the parties had rested on multiple occasions jurors including at least one time in writing did inform the court's of their concern  a page sixteen of the appellant's brief there were multiple communications where jurors were concerned about their personal information getting out there somehow right  i'm what i want to know as there is risk that are you saying that that was after that reassurance that the judge gave i can't speak to that your honor i don't know that the transcript from my recollection doesn't indicates the chronology on that matter but even if they if the judge at the district courts told the jurors maybe even off through some communication directly while the jury was deliberating that their information is secure we cannot just assume jurors thought oh well my information is going to be secure the fact that they've repeatedly indicated their concern demonstrates the undue prejudice so the appellants did move for a mistrial and that motion was denied and on the life sentence who are your client history than my clients so he got a two hundred and thirty month sentence and my client because he exercises constitutional right to trial got a two hundred and forty month sentence that just doesn't seem to be  a sufficient basis articulated and when you read between the lines i think it's a parent's this this impromptu new analysis was created which created a more and unwarranted sentencing disparity and cooperation perhaps cooperation can help miss the sun money and go pursuant to five k but it shouldn't help her husband he didn't cooperates and it just seems that the court wanted to give that that couple met mr ms a some money a go additional leading and but i don't think it's appropriate for a court to create its own factors to make that analysis if you'd like to save a little rebuttal time this would probably be a good time to thank you all right so mr wood has just appeared that maybe he'll three answers one or two interesting these are very dangerous people and so it really is a question i'm sure there was some concern in a minute by existence of the cargo within the confines about this case as well i am at a loss to see the relevance of the identity of one supplier versus another supplier so even though something awful happened to mr but it was moreno i don't see how it relates to this trial when the government just kind of waves its hands as part of background dan i really start looking for my wallet your honor i was start by saying that this is not correct mr bar was trying to say that say castro a gear a in korea outre meo and so on were connected through barrios moreno i don't see why his identity makes the slightest you didn't even prove that record all sorts of proof that they were conspiring with each other and you didn't use him as a no that wasn't the argument you were made maybe you see it that way now but that's not that wasn't thousand drug conspiracies operate that way i mean so one supplier drops out for some reason maybe he's put in prison maybe he dies maybe he just decided to turn over a new leaf you know who knows and they move on to another just collecting money that they owed to them from various members of the cartel one assumes they do collect money from time to time they used to which they wanted to put that money which i want to get to and the money laundering because that's my sitting in a traffic case i probably wouldn't want my personal information out but if you think it's the simple low a cartel who are going to send representatives to your home that's a whole different level this instance if they find out who i am it's my life on the line so it's a balance right i mean the the in general if this was an offshoot of this in a low a cartel or part of it or somehow collecting money that was gotten by the street drugs and you use the same evidence to show that it's not simply buyer seller that there's this very complex set of financial into relationships and you know there was fronting there was you know a lot of things that we look for under  and others but i don't see what train unless every case is going to be double charged distribution and money laundering i don't see what adds the money laundering is just fronting transaction large for the transaction which is an ongoing conspiracy relationship and then the money concede the government doesn't see that there is anything at all in that charging i do see your point about the substantial almost because they overlap between the continuation of the unlawful act and i'm having trouble thinking of things that are beyond the distribution whether it's you maybe going out and buying a stash house to use or something i mean i don't ok if that if that's it thank you very much mr darcy you ran out of time but i'll give you a minute if you have a little rebuttal a brief rebuttal normally your honor i might hit notes my co counsel but let me just provide these transcripts said quote there are dangerous people in mexico i just wanted to make those records notations for the court cease your honor with regard to the money laundering  were you were asking mr wood about the best of us and just wrote your indicated that there was evidence that jose manuel got drugs on credit and paid for them but actually i don't believe the government established the timing of the delivery of drugs and the payment of money with regard to one another and what i mean by that is we don't know if when the government introduced evidence of the st delivery if there had been a payment of money before that or if the payment followed agree or drugs we know there were delivery of drugs we know there was money but there's no evidence that jose manuel was buying on credit normally we would have coconspirator thanks to all counsel and i believe that you were court appointed and we appreciate very much your service to your clients and the court and will take this case under advisement