point your honor i guess our point is that the instruction obviously should not have been given and it is right for confusing jurors who aren't well versed in you know this law in conspiracy law and it adds to the confusion he notion of a conspiracy so i want to make sure i understand what you're saying how is it the jury could have been confused by this to reach the conclusion there was a conspiracy leaving aside on your point though but our point is that if you look at it from the perspective of the government's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that's obviously a really high standard and i just don't think we can see that you know if the standard was lower maybe he you know i think your points obviously are valid ones but a while ago i did trials and it's sort of a three ring circus and you're trying to spin the plates all over the place and you lose track and i did not spend a few days but i remember looking back at the discussion there and i don't recall anybody saying to the district court you know this really doesn't belong here because the charge the instruction was objected but i'm not sure that at again i understand what goes on in in a trial but i'm not sure the district court was ever presented with the most obvious thing that seems does on reflection to suggest well this really has no place here because the only charge defendant is is accused of is conspiracy not not this possession with intent to distribute  don't know how the mandatory minimum affects that you could barely say it obviously did say but he was facing a substantial sadness look at the sentencing got that really comes in for when he decides to tell a story the government rational my understanding is that the reason that that instruction was requested was precisely because the prosecutor was concerned that the defense was going to try to cut off the rd and th trip instructions we want we don't know what arguments you can play out is it true is out of the defense did not argue that the only the th trip was charged or that the jury should not convict because the defendant wasn't personally called in a th trip that doesn't actually come up during the trial at all but jenny and that went to the scope of the conspiracy it still doesn't have been asking that it's really difficult to think of any way in which the inclusion of that he could instruction could have hurt anything it's legally completely correct and she the extent something that can you point us to any other cases where incurred and instruction has been used in a case where it's a conspiracy only charge and the courts addressed this issue  not only was there is evil conspiracy but that seem a conspiracy clearly covered all four trips and so it's it's for that reason alone it's impossible for this instruction to have confused the jury in  any way and it's important to point out that that's how the case was tried i went back just yesterday and reviewed the closings and wrote the one of the ship in for each of the trip where they each individually  honor i believe so no what i'm not sure of off the top of my head is whether they would need it for both drugs there may have been a shipment with that didn't include cocaine i can't remember off the top of my head might not have been my not a at the testimony and pretty confident that they were very substantial each of them and of course again that because that th shot of shipment was actually seen as the one that was hasn't been discussed so far and in particular the the obstruction of justice in hands from a big causes i read the transcript it's pretty darn clear what it was the court was thinking i don't actually see there a finding of fact that the court made that the defendant had testified under oath fully the language used compares the witnesses testimony the defendant the money to the verdict of the jury obviously didn't believe him the court moves on pretty quickly with that is there's all the there's a lot of times where a jury makes you know a factual a does or a decision that imply that one witness was is only consistent with one witness's version of events and is inconsistent it doesn't mean that in all those cases are correct and you know i think that's the problem here is a whole bunch of intervening steps that are left study only question here really i agree with all of what you're saying it's that it would have been a relatively simple case take it wasn't it wasn't made and it wasn't on the record at that reject but i mean there's a lot of factors that go into jury decision and not all of those who are automatically over the witness why this case seems to be i think we need to keep in mind that the is there even if there aren't any other specific areas that i probably should go back to that is the restriction i just had a quick