morning in may it please the court my name is mark victor i'm with the law firm of victor and hall in mesa arizona and i'm here representing the appellant to misandry brown members of the panel i'm asking you today to reverse both of her convictions for insufficient evidence i think that there's no doubt that my client is certainly a marijuana dealer marijuana user and she was dating what i would call viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict you are here's why i think that i think that the government alleged an awful lot of facts that i would refer to maybe as sort of so what facts  things that even when added together don't amount to the kind of knowledge sufficient to further a conspiracy in just very briefly and these are facts taken from actually the government's brief that page twelve and thirteen  like my client being privy to insider information about the organization i think even if you was privy to that kind of information that sort of comes under the mere knowledge argument that line of cases that say knowledge is not enough  seem to still be approaching that as we have to look at the evidence in your favor but at this point i don't have a star that a person approaching can i not i am fully aware that we need to defer every inference goes to the government at this stage let me say it like this your honor and when you read through the government's brief i think that you're sort of left with while this is an overwhelming case of conspiracy and if what the government alleged in the government's br nine things that i think you can go through the brief rather carefully now and i'll get to those right now first that the government's brief at page six where they allege that my client bought and sold marijuana for the organization well if you go  to the excerpt of record that is relied upon for that assertion is just simply not there and i would urge the panel just respectfully to just take a look at some of the things that the government relies on for these assertions because if they're true i'll admit i've done prosecutor who talked about but if you look at the witness or the witnesses and so short of that was the case the witness actually says he doesn't remember i never actually agrees with the prosecutor on this point there are other things my third point that  she traveled there to make that point in kentucky what if you do that actually your honor i think there's good evidence in the transcript about that she asked another person for a ride to arizona from where she was the other person who was understand the court's concern and it is a valid concern if it was true if it was supported by the testimony i think i'm not here but i think if you take that portion of the government's transcript and you go back to the excerpts of records and you look at it it's just recall if the defendant at that meeting had anything to say about you becoming a pilot for the organization not specifically but in generalities that i was ok that i be trustworthy and could be used in the operation but he says that at least twice saying about it well you know i think that certainly my client was with his longstanding friends with broadband i'm not i can't really speak to that specific portion of the transcript i wish i had it in front of me but i don't i don't know where it is i would say this that i think that there's evidence that my client there's no question she introduced navarette to broad back and there's no question that they were friends and she also was transporting some of her goods i'll say because i don't think that the transcript is clear whether she was supporting transport either money or grubs or jewelry or something and i think she had some concerns about brodbeck but i think about some of the other problems when she didn't know that she left some cash and other items overnight and so i can't really speak to that but i think the closest that i find is this well maybe that was the vouching argument i'm not i'm really not sure which area the quote was referring to and i inferences from that testimony are construed in favor of the government i just think that if you look at the testimony and you look maybe i'm not sure what excerpt you have maybe you don't have what's right before to right after it but i think if you read it through carefully  members of the panel to do that i don't think it's clear that she is indeed having a discussion about benefiting the organization and saying yes this is my position is this person is trustworthy in this person should be used i don't think she was involved in some of the the government just sort of says yes to this and the next thing she did was on behalf of the organization she did do some things like i said she did sell some marijuana she did have some customers and if you read the transcript there are just evidence about that there was marijuana on the plane i just think there's not evidence at all in the record anywhere about her closely coordinating deliveries of water to go to get something from europe i think the answer to that is she had to go there to get to phoenix that was sort of the place that the money was put on the plane in new york long before i think it's clear that that money was going to be delivered whether or not my client was on that plane i think it's clear that my client had no discussion with anyone about that money and i think that the district splitting the profits there were other people that were employees they got paid to do things the pilots got paid to fly the packaging people get paid to package my client was neither an employee i didn't get paid she was simply a person maybe who chose was involved i would i would i would want to as a buyer say hey let me take a look at the goods or have a sample or something in the mere fact that they said ok you can sort of check out the marijuana before you buy it i don't think somehow springboards her into being a member of the sixty fifty nine and sixty eight mr berar testifying and he is explaining that there was a lot of money involved around two hundred fifty thousand dollars they were worried about they didn't do the transferring somebody else did the transfer and it isn't opposing counsel correct that that money was going to move whether or not she had hitched a ride on the line you want to yes the money that came from new york but the defendant was charged with transferring from kentucky to phoenix and let us not forget that she herself brought onto the plane approximately fifty thousand dollar fifty thousand dollars well go it wasn't her money your honor it was proceeds from her sales which she was transferring to arizona she was bringing that money to n understanding where what was the catch or answer to pay for the marijuana that's that's the turning of for what we know about transferring the fifty thousand dollars and that we know that it did get to arizona your honor it can be intended for that purpose but if it's not actually transferred as that money laundering if it was not transferred it would not be money laundering your honor however it be the whole the prior holdings by this court were that you don't have to even show that the money is actually  own back and how do we know that it went to someone else other than what you just read us which is i think that's what it was supposed to be for might it doesn't actually say your honor i'm sorry that that is all that thousand dollars of that money that would have gone on the plane whether she had been there or not but she wasn't charged with aiding and abetting and that was argued alone wasn't even you bet and abetting  it was argued that she transferred to transferring so basically we we have to find that she actually did some transferring herself and didn't just going to best somebody instead of an aider and abettor yes your honor because she showed so much concern for the money we have in fact further testimony that concern because mr gleason the pilot had separated from pilot your gun and he had the money that had been brought from new york so this was before he even  to put it want to start her fifty thousand dollars and in rather about a larger sum maybe we can started in the abstract what's necessary to move someone from the status of aider and abettor to someone did she physically control the larger sum of money that she did she have it in her possession she never had it in her possession in iran she did not the evidence was that highly loading the plane and he also believed that he would load it her fifty thousand dollars so the scaling the evidence and the way most favorable to which is how we need to do it that's right she is there on the airplane yes she knows the larger sum of money is there she's making phone calls alerting navarette as to where the plane is on the progress of the airplane and in your estimation it's a reasonable inference that can be drawn that she's doing that in order to sort of keep track of or in your words keep tabs on these people i think that may well be aiding and abetting but i having trouble seeing how that has her doing it as a principal can you help me with more evidence that i don't yet have my hands on is there something i'm not focused on she exercised control over drug money and she made decisions over whether pilots could be used for the organization therefore that was sufficient evidence to support her conviction  as we like to think you need us for things as lawyers you really don't in this case there's really no dispute here on anybody's part about what the law is we all know what the law is and the issue here is whether there's facts that a reasonable jury could  inferences and in the time that i have it's next to impossible for me to sort of take you through each one of these allegations what i would suggest in humbly request that you do and because it is an very important case for my client is maybe take the facts as alleged in the government's brief and look to the places in the transcript that the government has given us support for these statements these inferences and decide for yourself if you think that really a reasonable jury could infer the type of no objection are reading the entire transcript officially for the record you want to know this but as much time as you said you got it but you want to just clarify one point in time that i don't have twenty five seconds but this issue of being concerned if you look to mr yorker's testimony and you read it carefully i think that what she's concerned about is not the three hundred thousand dollars that's on the plane she doesn't even know about that that's exactly what mr yorker testifies to what she's concerned about is this briefcase that she has that somebody he thinks has cash in it and may or may not but in any event we concede she was a drug dealer we know she moved around her own cash the government takes a liberty there and says that was for the organization it wasn't for the organization there's no