the charges here arise out of a fictitious thing operation where an undercover officer posing as a relative of two thick tissues minors get reality and crystal placed an ad on craigslist message for stating that it's too little cousins were in town and wanted to meet guys after exchanging a series of text messages over five and a half months lho was arrested after he went to a motel  texting with mister lowe testified death to prevent entrapment he routinely ran his chaffs through other officers to make sure we are not entrapping somebody in our conversations and then he repeated that officers show their text messages to other team members who stopped them from going further when appropriate and i ask you that you've been arguing that that was balancing but bashing is really talking about a weakness i for may indicate that information not presented to the jury supports the witness's testimony and then there's the nd prong there the nd form of vouching the court held that it was error when a fact the prosecutor was telling the jury that witness with accurately describing the text that where the facts well i think it's both we did raise specifically a rule seventy for violation with respect to agent dogs testimony but i also think implication of this is that the other officers reviewed the tax determine that there was nothing inappropriate and it supports his his credibility his testimony that is is idea that he was not in trapping  there was one text message in the beginning that was missing and then mister lowe testified that he believed some other taxes were missing but the majority of the  ask this of you fully answered judge freedman's question and if so i've got one for you i think i have it's all my question is this  being just as one judge i'd tend to think that what office or other officers say or think about what's  doesn't have significant weight because it's seems like a legal conclusion that it's up to our panel to decide that whatever is cheer claimed that this  qualifies as a plain error there was an error it was plain or obvious it affects mister low substantial rights and seriously affected the fairness integrity or public reputation of  evidence to support an entrapment defense low stated in his text the number of times that he was not interested in children there were times where lho went days or even weeks without responding to  officers tax and it wasn't until about five and a half months later on september th after that tourist plane kind of pushed mister lowell claiming he was hurt and angry and accused lho of disrespecting him before a lot of them responded and they set up a meeting later that day lho also testified at trial that he was not looking to meet anyone under eighteen and was not interested in children and when he went to the motel actually didn't bring any money with him it brought the money was in into his in the car so i think it does  o that serves her testimony was directly related to that mental state predisposition mean that he had a tendency to be involved in these crimes or a tendency for example to be sexually attracted to children isn't that what predisposition me i think that's a you know that's that's a good formulation of it and i think that in this case  reviewed not only detective choices text but also mister low's responses and in the jury instruction to the jury as to how the determine the entrapment testimony i think goes actually both the predisposition it also goes to the government's inducement which is part of the determination of the mental state a predisposition under the jur instructions let me move to my nd argument and that then is that even in the light most favorable to the government the evidence was insufficient for rational juror five beyond reasonable doubt that low believe the fictitious be fourteen and then a message about a month later or he repeats that the two girls are ages thirteen or fourteen but i think that if i would tell is also the one on  september th right at the time of the crime right about how they look and one of them looking thirteen yeah but but that one states doesn't say that she is still thirteen and says that they look thirteen and fourteen year old if i would tell the court today that i have two daughters and my daughter crystal is going to be fifteen soon have reality is going to be forty and then a month later a christmas party i told you that fourteen year old look at their very reason to mention a thirteen year old if they're not thirteen know let me i don't think it is because there was no photos shown there were no photos show mister low maybe if you have a case for that when you come back that would be great they counsel and i have a question also for you consider ok before you come back and take me up your time plug give you some extra time but my earlier give the general standards for about june which normally involve suggesting someone's credibility is high it's vesting there's other a legal conclusion i'm sorry i don't quite have what i asked you why it was not testimony about a legal conclusion argue the testimony has been told it was not asking for a legal conclusion it was asking for the person to gerson protocols that the f b i had in place when they conducted the investigation of lho and whether they followed this procedure well the relevance of that other than to get the jury to make the legal conclusion that this was invalid sorry that this wasn't entrapment but i don't know that the prosecutor was seeking to have the jury conclude there was no entrapment based on those agents testimony it looks to austin the prosecutor was and it was only a few questions only a few pages in the transcript and the testimony concerning these texts is enormous there were just pages and pages of testimony on the tanks there were very detailed i don't think we need to know some jocularly what the officers were trying to do but i do think there is some relevance to communicate to the jury what the officers were doing and it creates a context for the attacks by establishing the protocols and procedures state was or what his interpretation or his explanation of his actions weren't opining on the defendant's while he was in traffic they were testifying to their actions and their state of mind and what they thought they did error and does conclude there was improper vouching it was so minimal that it doesn't it didn't affect the integrity of the proceedings and didn't result in a miscarriage of justice again it was just a minimal what you officer was communicating it was that the girls were thirteen and fourteen years old and that love was not putting too fine of a prince on the specific language and the people they expected to have an encounter with a thirteen year old girl and conclude that the girls while the girls was no longer thirteen years old so we we we do believe that the jury was rational and in making that conclusion if it is the man the right knowledge or it's reckless disregard  think lucian beyond a reasonable doubt if i read in that correctly let me know why why you think they could conclude that beyond a reasonable  seeing for all four counts of conviction was was not claim none of this court or the supreme court or any other circuit court has addressed the allowable unit of prosecution in either  statutes and again we believe that if you look at the predicate in the statutes the act relates to the conduct of the defendant or perpetrator toward the victim and the language and structure and so forth mcquire prosecutors judges defense lawyers to look at the individual victims involved in these offenses and ask how the perpetrator trafficking victims probably perpetrator overcame the will of women and girls to engage them in prostitution and other illegal sexual activity and that requires the parties to anderson is a problem for you is also about trafficking victims rape transporting  iraq i think i think brown isn't it sorry i have to figure out which one it is but the case that has that you can only have a single if that's even though you were transporting many whether you're transferring one person or more than one person what's the difference between transporting six and  get into explaining how the defendant exercise control over the person tracking and they require a specific analysis in terms of how to charge the case and how to punish the defendant as we know that the statutes have different only provisions based on the age of the victim and there are different definitions in the statutes especially five thousand and ninety one that requires specific analysis of course the legislative history the purpose of the statutes to strengthen the department's ability to prosecute these trafficking acts and coercion by giving prosecutors the tools to see large penalties and so forth congress in the quote of these  offenses with human rights violations and we contend if you look at everything together there is controlling loss there is guiding light in both statutes that support the conclusion that you know prosecution is based on the victim or patronizing a woman or girl for her sex it's not punished the same way it's not punished the same as if you're ninety one dollars twenty four cents to be punished that was offenses so we believe there's a there was no instruction about reckless disregard and rail with respect to jobs gould's question earned not to have a closer case to the facts of our case  i do not i think but the principle itself i think is fairly clear and straightforward that it's an error when the prosecutor is telling the jury that another witness age jury trial a three reporters transcript a one hundred and ninety six and so i think as fishley because of that as well as the other reasons it was at least a reasonable probability it would affected and influence the jury thank you gav a final question for you if if the panel were true decide for sake of argument fifteen year mandatory minimum on the on the a one violation assuming that's not rejected on and trap and council and we appreciate that you both made all the extra efforts necessary to help the panel on this case is understand the difficult thank you thank you