good morning my name is thomas france traitor i represent hurdle an interest in the court it pleases court the original indictment in this case in january two thousand and fifteen did not charge mr hernandez with nineteenth two thousand and thirteen testified that the meeting occurred at a restaurant with your bottle was there with his wife is part of the his wife being mr hernandez cousin mr hernandez the agent testified that the other search of evidence in this case is my client's rambling incoherent uncorroborated interview a year later in the f b i building my client was a thirty two year old man who delivered pizzas and there with his mother does they talk about customers there's a one case where the the one woman survived at somebody's way for this i promise them a part of this this up you know there's always there's always talk was always exchanges of money there's always  conversations about where this stuff is going none of that is present here it doesn't happen now my client's statement probably going to neuter that well but maybe a little way understanding that he's not a heroin cocaine marijuana connected to those you have centrists and i didn't give anybody any or all and i didn't give anybody any marijuana i didn't give anybody any money anybody being my client so the statement obviously becomes something my client in his frightened condition six o'clock in the morning talking to a government agent enough the i believe tried to help and of course i did was hurt and so that you're picked i stay put out and then we really have nothing we can talk about as far as the a distributor agrees with somebody to make the delivery for him so i count as a conspiracy one transaction the drug conspiracy went beyond just a september nineteenth two thousand and thirteen meeting at the restaurant that mr branscum to refer to it also included the drug transactions that occurred on september twenty fifth and twenty six the jury also came to this conclusion in part based on the defendant's own statements his post arrest statement where he admitted being involved in this conspiracy he specified specifically the kinds of drugs that he was picking up on not specifically use the word runner identified himself as a courier but he did acknowledge their role when he was asked by the agents all of this evidence was corroborated at trial with intercepted conversation between the parties that showed that the defendant and mr upon all work together to obtain drugs from mr sanchez in addition to the wire intercepts there was law enforcement surveillance there were telephone records showing that the parties had contact during the times of the drug deal and there's also testimony from a drug expert who talked about tools of the drug trade tools that the defendant himself use such as using a burner phone acknowledging the concept of fronting which he admitted during his post arrest knowledge that he understood code sanchez use for cocaine there was also sufficient evidence to support the phone counts in this case the intercepted conversations the telephone records all show that the defendant used a phone which he admitted that he your honour's there is substantial evidence supporting the jury's verdict on count one of the drug conspiracy counts three and four of the phone counts and this court should leave those verdicts understory so we ask that you