charged with the defendant they don't necessarily even have to be arrested so what we have in this case is we have daniel pipes who became romantically involved with i think it's fair to say a rather large scale deal in this whole protracting scheme spanned two months roughly she knew because she was from around great falls to another context mr ramos rommel's for her boyfriend she took some phone calls mr ramos ramos who had the connections in washington to get the drugs who had the money to buy the tribes and she knew that she was engaging in drug production when she says that in those phone calls she was  agreed to be the go between she knew exactly what she was doing she did yes yes but i think my question is is whether or not that conduct when compared with others involved in this truck conspiracy should be considered at least mine for a two point justin and when you compare her activity in that is basically taking phone calls from this drug distributor and passing on the messages on to her boyfriend mr ramos ramos when you compare that activity may please the court your honors my name is chris mclean i'm filling in for laurie so can the sergeant and it's i think important first note at the beginning of my comments the standard of review here is clear and i don't standard we could have a look at that and he specifically said that he was looking so only to the conduct of the defendant well if we look at page sixteen and seventeen where he's making his rulings it's actually pages twenty four and twenty five of the excerpts of record he starts out and he says well i'm going to make my findings on the issue of adjustment downward based upon the arguments mr mass mr ness made earlier and you look at his entire ruling which goes over these two pages it indicates that he in fact did consider all of mr nessa's arguments the facts that mr nestor forth and then says this is not a case it's my determination that this is not an appropriate case based upon the facts based upon the facts before me and looking solely to the conduct of the defendant for this court to exercise its discretion to reduce defense level based on minor part by preponderance of the evidence to obtain the adjustment and in this case ms yates was not just a career as we see in many of the cases where martha participant has been affirmed by this court she was not just a courier like mr rojas milan she was actually the person that bromley contacted when he wanted drugs she would get ahold think it's worth noting in the record that when she was arrested during the last transaction on september fourth inside her purse was not just drugs but also notes with names and amounts of money indicating that she had some role in keeping track of either who owed the drug dealers money or who have paid money she was certainly more than a courier in these cases we characterize here we point out and we agree with you judge reimer in our brief that it seems inconsistent for her to argue successfully that all those drugs in the big conspiracy should not be counted against her calculating her guideline range yet she wants holes participants to be considered by courts in determining whether she is a minor participant we do find that inconsistent and incorrect that might be precisely how judge hadn't was looking at  it i can't tell from this record but it does seem clear from the record that he listened to mr nass and he reviewed that sentencing memorandum and the information that was contained in it concerning these other participants don't think it is i mean we're talking about a charging document that sets forth to people as the same methamphetamine with intent to distribute for this two month period from august through september and she participated in three transactions that we know of and in those transactions she was the person that was setting up the meeting locations and arranging for the drug dealer to be present and that's just not something that comports with the definition of minor participant in the guidelines she's less culpable than ramos for example but she's not shoes were actively involved in these transactions and it seems clear that judge chad was correct when he determined in his discretion he was not going to award it to local decrease for minor participant i think two points need to be made clear and the first point has to do with whether or not judge had considered the full scope of the argument i made and i think it's clear that he didn't and in fact he rejected  the scope of my argument that is dealing with others that were involved in for lack of a better term this drug conspiracy and he says that repeatedly in his findings he says for example i limit my findings to those matters involving the drugs that are acknowledged hav review in the of the facts he did not consider any of the facts any of these other person's involvement with respect to the question of whether or not ms yates is trying to have it both ways that is that she's done trying not to be held liable for all of the relevant conduct but she wants this role reduction i think two points need to be made clear first because of her limited involvement and i mean in a temporal sense the limited in kaufman where she became involved in this thing in august and they were arrested by september it appears to me that she was held held responsible for all of the drugs with which she was involved with during that period of time she didn't enter the conspiracy until the conspiracy had been going on for seven months and conspiracy terminated and she was in fact held responsible for all of those drugs in fact her base of fans level was the same this mister mr ramos ramos the second is whether or i forget it was less than fifty grams of cocaine the conspiracy actually involved quite a bit more than that and the district court judge lovell and that case basically made the same point that you were making it was just as it was possession with intent to distribute and i think even the guideline in the commentary is it plays out ok and i think that's all i have a