that video recordings also showed statements from these coconspirators they're discussing the scope of their scheme the fact that they want to transport tente lows of cocaine on a weekly basis from los angeles to hawaii and the fact that they want to transport a quarter million dollars back from hawaii to los angeles on a weekly basis there are text messages between coconspirator tommy mendoza and a phone number linked to the defendant discussing their scheme discussing booking flights to go to hawaii to pick up the drugs discussing hotel reservations to stay in hawaii and discussing the fact that they're just going to pick up and drop off the drugs in the next to the next people in the we say that the district court of is just discretion here as an initial matter at the hearing on the motion and limiting the district court refused to provide any basis or explanation for excluding all of this evidence the videos the text messages and reporting well he pointed to the papers he's average your papers have read your paper is that's it so thank you that that's correct your honor but the district court made no factual findings that would have been necessary to determine whether for example the coconspirator exception to hearsay applies he made no balancing test for as required under four zero three and when there is no for three balancing test this court reviews that decision de novo and so  the government's position here is that the district court did indeed abuse its discretion because its decision was completely arbitrary and it was implausible given the inferences that can be drawn from the record here and terms of that  prove them up or has to lay the foundation and what i was concerned is you sort of presumed certain things that i don't know that from the records that are are wrong  an agent can't form a conspiracy with a defendant that's goes back way back in law and that's what i'm worried about is it's just too many things occur between the agent and the other person before your other coconspirators either get involved or they're just merely present so that's what i'm concerned about is why do you and why did you take the position that the denial of a motion in limine he was he had the presumptive effect of a motion to suppress i don't understand that can you help me out there  interlocutory appeal right in examining sort of the finality of requirements and i understand that and i understand the case but what i'm concerned about is that it leaves counsel to put it in criminal cases to now litigate your entire case based on pleadings that are filed without an evidentiary basis whereby your opponent can cross examine the affidavits your legal pinions things like that in front of a jury but there were you have to lay the foundations of the jury then to decide when to prove your case or not but you're saying as a matter of law i should be allowed to use these and and i have a premature issue that i'm a little concerned about that's not just me so please  understand that and to address at that point a little further the question before the district court was the admissibility of evidence and in looking at that that standard the question is whether a reasonable juror would find in favor of admissibility under preponderance standard the government's position is that the district court abused its discretion to the extent that it concluded that a reasonable juror could not find the conditional facts necessary for the hearsay one which is a very real low standard and so to just summarily exclude literally the bulk of the government's evidence the day before trial was not and meaningful exercise of discretion it was an arbitrary decision that is not supported by the law or the facts here and the government has no other remedy to address that error let's talk about the expert testimony so there it's a pure balancing issue yes is it going to be helpful to the jury it's a matter of judgment and mr torres papers say it is not going to be helpful to the jury this is a very simple transaction the district court l those two cases are cases that address expert opinion testimony on the fact that exact trafficking organization is not likely to use an unknowing but we affirmed the district court sense it wasn't an abuse of discretion to allow in the expert testimony but now the shoe's on the other foot and you're asking us to say it was an abuse of discretion to exclude it do you have any case on point for that princip and not for the reverse procedural position that we're in now but here the defense papers did not identify any unfair prejudice to the defendant as to this evidence that the only reason set forth is that it's simply unnecessary because the media and other places jurors know how drug transactions work and precisely for that reason because the jurors might come in with preconceived notions that are incorrect based on movies and t v shows  government plans to set forth some expert testimony that has been affirmed by this court to explain very basic things like the value the street value of the cocaine in this case the number of  that that cocaine would equate to and the fact that a sophisticated drug trafficking organization would not use on an unknowing courier which what it does seem to be the defendants defense central defense at trial is that he just along on the strip in the wrong place at the wrong time and had absolutely no idea about a conspiracy and having an expert explain how drug trafficking organizations their modus operandi that has been accepted expert testimony to explain how a combination of seemingly innocuous facts together actually indicate criminal activity here for example the fact that the travel pattern the fact that they bought a plane ticket the day before they flew the fact that the plane ticket was just for a one day turnaround trip the fact that the defendant misspelled slightly his name when traveling the counsel got a chart go ahead no i said what you're suggesting you're here is your final argument and  all that was done without the benefit of an expert and so that's my question isn't it the do nomination using an expert within the discretion of the district court it's not you don't need them in every case because what you're suggesting based on the other cases is sort of a strict liability standard if it's a drug case i must be allowed to use these experts and i don't think that's not the case that's not that's certainly not the government's position that it wouldn't just automatically  deferential standard and i didn't see anything in the other cases where they were suggesting that i could use those as absolute law against the judge using his discretion in  especially for experts and especially for what you are suggesting about experts i guess i'm trying to figure out why and what case i'm going to use to say the district court abused its discretion and we're here i don't like the fact we're here on in iraq torie prevail but i couldn't get around it so i guess the problem that i'm having again looking at the standard of abuse discretion how one could really say in an expert's setting that this is an abuse and your honor i see that i'm out of time if i may just briefly  question on an abuse of discretion standard here again the judge refused to explain any reason for the ruling and did not engage in any type of balancing test on a four or three type