to the next case united states first as man reasons during my oral argument miss manners raised a number of another number of other issues on appeal in her brief i will not address those arguments the semi conceding those arguments but i'll rely on the briefs for those so two that there is insufficient evidence that miss man had a predisposition to commit a violation of the a t c a with this case really boils down to is an e mail that the united states munitions list and those are prohibited items we export abroad specifically the people's republic of china eighteen months later after she bade this inquiry to the business associate who she hadn't filiation because he was a franchisee of her capacitor company contacts are at the behest of the homeland security agent and eighteen months later an inquiry is made to her as  to well actually what he does explain to her is that he does have a supplier for the jet engines and that he can get her contact with the supplier which which ends up doing  one more than one person participating obviously there has to be an overt act has to be known and willful violation in this situation if you look at the evidence that was presented at trial inquiry or machine would make an inquiry as to an item to procure these things were jet engines there was a at one point discussions i believe the mars rover there was a drone that was that was also at one point discussed these two cars we made to the undercover agent and they were then from the undercover agent there'd be an offer to to sell these items started to export these prohibited items the people's republic of china really what their argument was really with what happened was they really agreed to negotiate an agreement that really impossible to also even if it's an impossibility it's still be a conspiracy and complete detailed agreements not necessary if it does seem to me that at least they had reached  an agreement to get you know to search for a supplier before man and saying we even became aware of lew i think that  i guess what has to be what one has to look at is the fact that when miss man made this inquiring into mr mccauley who was her concert business associate nothing happened for eighteen months in that situation and mr mccaul obviously went to the homeland security agency an undercover agent then came involved in the case and through his actions i think that what what was  she was involved in any type of unlawful activity or that she would even had any way to source these these products which which leads me to my next point and that is just that the government didn't present sufficient evidence or there wasn't sufficient of an for a jury to find predisposition on the part of miss man to enter into this conspiracy which she initiated the discussions with a colleague that's correct judge initiated it was one when initial email mr mccauley came to her repeatedly warned her that the proposals were illegal at times at times he did that he could obtain these objects these were hit articles and transshipped them through a third party country that's correct as far as her predisposition though i mean looking at the factors for that  i think the evidence was and the trial court did allow a entrapment defense for miss man and the elements for that are obviously the that  the evidence that was read as far as predisposition she had no criminal record no arrest record no history whatsoever never been involved in any type of crime there was actually an eighteen month as i've already said there is an eighteen month was no evidence that she was engaged in a type of criminal activity or tempting to procure these engines or any type of prohibited article under the u s some now and then finally in another twenty seven months passed from the time and asia loop broke off negotiations until she was arrested and during that period of time there's absolutely no evidence that miss man continued this search for procuring these engines on the behalf of mr cha she also did make a type of post arrest statement regarding the conspiracy that yes i was involved in the conspiracy and i was attempting to get engines or other prohibited articles for mr chang there's no evidence of that clearly a conspiratorial agreement between miss man and mr zand the evidence of that agreement really falls into four buckets all of which were admitted at trial e mails and phone calls between m and matt macaulay e mails and phone calls between man and the undercover e mails and phone calls between mr assange and the undercover and finally e mail sent to man by unindicted coconspirators the case makes it very clear and even there is a part of jones that makes this very clear that to prove that there is an agreement between two coconspirators the government does not have to have to prove that it was successful the government does not have to prove that every detail was finally worked out in fact what the cases show is that once these negotiations start in earnest there is that and there is an agreement between two coconspirators one certain steps are taken in many cases it doesn't matter what happens next what's most important in this case is that the agreement putting aside the undercover putting aside the mcauley is that the agreement was between m in february or march two thousand and eleven when this conspiracy starts right away it's clear that mismanage mr zang are talking to each other they each know what the other one is thinking they've entered an agreement to import from the united states to china certain munitions list items the fact that they may have changed over time doesn't affect whether or not the conspiracy exists i think it's exactly as judge prior said that once you have these initial conversations between the two of them between a meeting of the minds the conspiracy starts there i obviously won't go through all of the phone calls and all of the exhibits but as you look at even what happens right at the beginning of this conspiracy it's abundantly clear from the conversations it's a strong inference there can be no other inference that miss man and mr zine are having all of these conversations briefly  about united states versus jones a case that's relied on heavily in mismanaged grief jones as the court said in jones jones is a very fact specific analysis but specifically jones is easily  distinguishable for three reasons first you know this case is structurally entirely different from what happened in jones in jones all we were dealing with was conditional proposals there was actually no meeting of the mine here there may be conditions and certain facts and certain weapon systems that they desire but there certainly was an agreement to import those items from the united states to china jones never got that far second another problem and jones was at the undercover had rejected the proposal and so everything just stopped here the undercover first met makali and then the undercover eagerly endorse the proposal they were negotiating over a period of a year and a half to get these weapons export so jones is very different there and finally most importantly in jones once the undercover step out of your question there was no conspiracy between the alleged coconspirators they never got together they never did move to the entrapment issue that was just raised by counsel some of the same arguments the go to the heart of the conspiracy also defeat the entrapment argument essential of the argument of counsel is that miss man was not committing any crimes before she was committing crimes or after she could that has nothing to do with entrapment the government need not prove that miss man had done this before the government doesn't need to show that she was planning this that she has a criminal record as judge prior said what the evidence shows that the when this conspiracy started it started by miss man nobody else she sent an email with a very clear instructions that she wanted to export the engines that are on the munitions list from the united states to china it is very hard to imagine a situation i'm not saying some possible but it's quite hard to imagine a situation where the defendant initiated contact and there's a sure your honor the first thing i would say is that i don't think legally that that makes any difference at all because they have a meeting of the minds to exports certain items from the munition list and they go ahead and try now they keep changing some of the presumably because mr assange is buyer first they wanted an engine then they wanted technology for it then they want to drones and they wanted decoys the fact that they keep changing it doesn't defeat the existence of a conspiracy they certainly had a meeting of the minds if you look your honor at the first e mails in february october two thousand and eleven and then speed up a year and a half to the fall of two thousand and twelve they're clearly talking about what it is that they want in fact there really isn't evidence that ms mann herself is coming up with the type of engines they want she's only getting that from mr zhang so respectfully your honor i would say that you know counsel's argument i think is a version of the argument that because the conspiracy never resulted in actual weapons being shipped that there's no agreement and i just don't think that's the case law the only other thing mentioned on entrapment is that in addition to the fact that miss man is the person that initially reached out and that the government does not have to prove that she had done this crime before what you have is after man submitted the proposal in june to the early two thousand and eleven fast forward a year and a half when mr mccauley reaches out to her she doesn't back away in fact what she does is that very same day the exact day that matt mccall he calls now working with homeland security she reaches out to zang and then calls mccauley right back so she's not trying to get out of this conspiracy  the same is true there are phone calls tons of evidence where miss man is in this with the goal of getting these weapons she never backs out and i just don't think that you can ever have and i would say never it is very hard to imagine certainly on these facts of valid entrapment defense where it's instigated by the defendant raise in that sense if there are no further questions of you the rest of my time thank you  thank you judge i guess the the really the issue then really becomes what was the agreement between jang and miss mann ultimately whether she agreed to actually import these prohibited items or attempt to procure these are prohibited items from china or to the negotiation or was the agreements negotiated agreement to come to get these items  i think what we're falls down in the conspiracy is that again as the government has alluded to mr saying kept turning down these offers what was the meaning of the him it's hard to say that they really had it purpose or a desire that they were on the same page to say hey we're going to get these engines were these prohibited items and ship them t