weber and then for the recall what happened during a confrontation he says in his hotel room all these people come in with bats and guns and sticks and so forth and they threaten to do him harm and they basically take his property and make him there was an agreement that mr weber entered into shane hoskins and the rest of the crew find a state that everyone knew or certainly mr weber knew had methamphetamine and government established  agreement with weapon when hoskins effort to intimidate webber fails and he comes to believe that whatever affects not have to say which was true webber then throws in with hoskins to try to find and the evidence that comes from homes as well as several other witnesses who testified whatever comes out of the hotel room voluntarily he stops at a friend's house at one point gets a gun he goes with homes and with jacobson and others several other homes quantity they all understand it is and and there was a factor safe with that amount of methadone fellow who well there was lots of that with them also that were never want to steal the say for himself right and he may well have there's  there's there is no concrete evidence of what weber intended to do once the state was found with hosty and based on his prior desire to steal it he may well have decided that he wanted to steal it again or he may well have just kept in working with hoskins we don't know the answer that question and i suspect that weber was waiting to see what opportunity presented itself he did have a chance to steal it he probably would have thrown him but the sell some of that to finance his own purchases and go back to maintain it i understand you didn't say that you're not relying on them you know i'm going to retract that actually on a fact as i recall my argument at the trial i did argue the whole picture brian weber's part of the whole picture early on and methamphetamines going hoskins did big tuna to web among others and he's part of the conspiracy at that point also being a lower member but you did not make this argument in your brief gus not of the brave you know i  right why not you know i guess i just didn't think of it at the time because because weber's bigger involved i think or when he gets involved with trying to find a larger quantity of methamphetamine  once was to be distributed and of course weber's prior distribution which prior efforts of it as a drug dealer a big part of that so why should we not hold that your failure to raise the argument here with respect to sales and fronting by gibson whoever there's not a waiver that argument well i would say that you shouldn't hold that because it's a turn on the facts are supposed to a different argument and it's one that i have brought up the case previously but my the thing i would really offer is that there sufficient evidence fine even on just the argument i'd say that there is a conspiracy exists specially given government will be a conspiracy between tina gibson and mr weber who distribute methamphetamine with mr weber of being at some point being in possession with intent to distribute is conspiracy instruction in there is the bottom line numbers of the court is that we're talking about in the truth the trial was a absolutely no evidence of any intent or any agreement or any meeting of the minds between mr weber and mr hoskins further distribute that methamphetamine the only thing that was agreed to do was to search for the safe and to return it to change costs thank you thank you very much we thank both of you for making the long trip from montana case united states