ever answered the phone and did not ever give the phone to my client this confidential informant told the jury that it made it that he barely knew charles stevens and i had only seen him a few times and had only heard his voice to say hi and yes he testified that he recognized this person on the other end of the line as a trial stephenson and in my mind your honor that is not sufficient evidence for a jury to confidential informant that your client was the supplier well as the evidence came out your honor the molina rasta talked about my dude my man my boyfriend by quoting the law enforcement testimony she never wants to refer to my duty as fatboy or charles stevens and so there was a lot of ambiguity about who her boyfriend was who was  enforcement themselves testified that they kept the house under surveillance where mostly men rascal was residing and they weren't even sure the trial stevenson was in there they didn't see him come come in or out and he may not even have been in montana for all they knew your honor in and the undercover agents including law enforcement and at no time was my client present for any of those sales in this day and age of sentencing guidelines which are creatures of the law i believe it's still fair to say that the ancient principles of equity also apply and even though legally speaking a sentence a defendant for what's referred to as relevant conduct that equitable principles should also apply the law should be tempered with equity equity and my argument conceivably had we mounted a defense against those three dismissed counts we could have disabuse the judge of that notion conceivably even though  arguing that certain evidence was introduced improperly and we're arguing that certain instructions were improperly written and given to the jury with regard to the evidence that was introduced there didn't know anything about any of these tales that she was involved with the question then there's about the ecstasy thinks which was an entirely unrelated investigation and entirely unrelated case system therefore we made a motion to supplement discovery asking for those whatever those statements may have said about actually saying the government again refused to provide in these drugs and they said that they were introducing this for impeachment purposes however man raf's has said from the very beginning in her  she was involved in the sale of drugs the information that the government relies on and in her statement is her representations that she had not been involved in the sale of drugs prior to the time that she met the confidential infor stated that she was not involved in the sale of drugs prior to the time that she that the confidential informant does not provide any basis whatsoever for  california on that basis they introduced the evidence of income tax records of charles stevens income tax records that they had that they had not the probation of the testified he brought his probation file with him to the to the courtroom he referred to it and we were not allowed the defense was not allowed to inspect that file or to look at it in any manner shape or form the judge at any conference outside interest conference indicated that he wanted the probation officer to go through the file and to tell government was giving to the confidential informant in order to provide his cooperation in this case those kinds of issues are the only issues really involved and being involved in placing calls of the summer of two thousand he had a conversation with molly moran rationing and she tells him at that time that her boyfriend has come up has drugs and plenty of drugs and lots of drugs that  fictions you want to basically want to tell the jury that you were threatened by this confidential informant yet you had a relationship for six years and engaged to go to going to but you didn't tell him about this and this  know by the government divulging it previously including payments of sixteen thousand dollars total first work not only in this case but other cases the tax records is an issue that the discovery issue thank you but i think it has to go only met him once or twice and had called a phone number that was not associated with karl stevenson it's totally circumstantial and there's overwhelming evidence that the rascal was involved whether or not she was with regard to the the initial question that was asked of even rascal with regard to whether or not she had used any hard drugs the context quoted by the judge there is clearly that she was being asked about what had occurred prior to november of two thousand when she first met the confidential informant otherwise your initial statement that she had knowledge selling drugs from the beginning would have made absolutely no sense mr score also referred to a statement that she had made with regard to the fact that after she after the proceedings with him were concluded she had been involved with selling methamphetamine cocaine or narcotics that question was asked but it had nothing to do with ecstasy and the issue here concerns th