criminal convictions the district court committed plain error when it denied mr dinos rule twenty nine dollars motions and subsequently entered a finding of guilt the dean of respect we asked this court to reverse the district court's findings for two reasons introduced and argued evidence it should have known was falls to my st point this conviction rate rests according to the district court on three pillars one is the receipts that were claim mr medina would mail drugs back and forth and three mr medina's fingerprints on the packaging of cocaine found when they arrested mr duane us the st two of these pillars have to fall and with them mr be conviction the mail receipts and mr du anuses testimony were used by both the government and the district court to corroborate each other but independently are inherently untrustworthy three seats as i  that they were found in mr medina's car on aug th two thousand and fourteen but one of the receipts exhibit twenty so the exhibits are seventeen to twenty one of the receipts exhibit twenty eight was patently not found that day because it was created that same day three thousand miles away in milwaukee wisconsin so we know that that was a lie in a sheer act of convenience for the government and the district court brush away of a twenty they brush away that fact and they use the other three receipts as circumstantial evidence to support mr duenas his claim that he  medina were working together but the testimony of officer nudist resort zero was crystal clear those all four of those receipts were found together he testified about them to gather the government criticize his argument as all or nothing that you can't just now but they're right about that it is all or nothing because you can't look at this testimony of this officer and separate the receipts that you want to believe in and and decide that you don't like certain ones it is all or nothing by the very language of officer nunez's testimony he's the one that made it that way and this is the focus of our claim of perjury  testimony doesn't that that part of this argument does not focus on mr duenas but as to mr join us the district court itself found that in the in the district court's words he's a liar he lied on the stand he support the finding that mr duenas is testimony about working with mr medina that was enough to corroborate it in the district court words so it's really a sleight of hand here by the district court and the government arguing the case on the one hand we're going to ignore the physical impossibility of exhibit twenty that's physically impossible for that to have been true testimony and then go on to use the other three that were part of the exact same testimony then we're going to take mr de way this is testimony that the district court made a specific finding of incredibility and unbelievability and line but then we're going to accept just that the sliver just that portion of his testimony that said i work with mr medina and the reason we're going to accept that the reason the district court accepts that is because of the three receipts so it's a circular sleight of hand corroboration upon corroboration so in this court's case in united states versus versus garcia last year and the many cases that that case cites speaks to the importance for a district court to examine particularly in a rule twenty nine dollars motion the missing gaps in evidence that a jury might pass over now this was a bench trial so it's  not precisely analogous but it kind of is because you know sat in essence we had to rule twenty nine motions but so that is what mr dean is asking you to do examined the gaps here and the big gap here is exhibit twenty because exhibit twenty takes away all the exhibits if we agree that that's a lot that's that's perjurious testimony and because those remaining exhibits were used to support mr duenas his testimony then that's the only way they get to find an agreement that there was a conspiracy so in other words with no receipts there's no agreement there's nothing to corroborate mr du anuses testimony  the government nor the district court claim that the fingerprints alone provide that corroboration at most the fingerprints are circumstantial evidence of possession with intent to deliver or mere presence but not of an agreement to engage in a conspiracy in other words mr davis claim that there's an agreement requires the use of the receipts and the receipt and record and using the receipts requires ignoring the blatant lie that was used to introduce them that's the garcia gap here and it's very clear from both the rule twenty nine decision and the later verdict that the tuna ok i'll stop it to the government i'll skip to the important part the government knew or should have known that this was false they had three and a half years before this case went to trial to interview officer noon as a result to find out what the deal was with exhibit twenty why if he was going to get up and testify why he would testify about something that's obviously not true on its face they didn't do that they had a duty to do that and when they discovered it during trial they just pushed on and decided they were going to ignore it and they just argued about the other three the other three receipts and or just reduced to calling  documentation i reserve the rest of my time thinking good morning may please the court my name is jonathan carney got here on the happy united states this morning and i would like to address both the sufficiency of the evidence and the defendant's claim that is due process rights were violated contrary to is so deferential and so familiar to this court in order to throw out medina's conviction this court would have to conclude that even when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable prosecution it was essentially she did state that she relied on the testimony of rudolfo to anus despite some of the problems with that testimony because it was corroborated by the fingerprint evidence on the inbound packets of cocaine and three of the four male receipts and i will get around to talking about exhibit twenty in a moment but if if you'll bear with me i'd just like to talk about sufficiency of the evidence a little bit more  establish and they were found in his car after this sort of bizarre chase and shootout in frederico and as for duenas the judge stated the fact that he is not believable in all respects does not mean that he is entirely incredible and some portions of his testimony were corroborated by other abit in the case the most significant piece of evidence being the fingerprints on the packaging on the inbound package of cocaine and i would just add here because i may not have made it clear in our brief that doing us identified medina as the source of the package in the store his source of supply before the results of the fingers were known so afraid he was guessing he took a pretty good guess in some i would say that judge pepper plane as you've heard from opposing counsel and must be false testimony the government government must have known or it should have known that it was false and importantly there must be a reasonable likelihood that the false testimony affected the judgment the fact finder here of course it was a bench trial so we're talking about judge driver and i don't want to be cavalier about this but there's nothing really unusual about a cooperating get to exhibit twenty and the problem is clear it bears a date that is inconsistent with having been found in puerto rico on august th how this document came to be among the receipts presented to officer he not even raise a proffer objection to the admissibility of mail receipts in fact he he raised the issue for the very st time during his closing argument which in this particular case occurred a couple months after the close that's very significant because it flagged the issue for the finder of fact so even if we assume that the officers testimony was false contrast the truth was unknown to the defense and never learned furthermore we don't have to speculate about the likelihood of the false testimony up to the verdict because we know from judge pepper that brings us to plain error which is sort of the last portals that the defendant has to go through in order to succeed within the pool claims his new claim is debatable at bast and therefore it's not a plain error the questions thank you thank you i first will address the government's argument about the fact that there was no proper i guess objection made no cross examination  and there's a reason for that is because it wasn't flag for us intel well into the trial and so i guess it's not unusual that little things like this are missed by both counsel but once it did become clear and it was flagged the government and the district court basically ignored they basically brushed aside the fact the government i mean excuse me the drug in the case i'm sorry  and the and so if there's a fault for not making a proper and objection i'll definitely take that i wish you did so but the government in introducing these four exhibits if you read the trial transcript about the introduction of them through both officer known as result oh and mr duane us it's a very it's very interesting because the the co for the government clearly recognized the problem with exhibit twenty especially with mr duenas they went through exhibit seventeen exhibit eighteen exhibit nineteen did you do these three yes then extends an exhibit twenty begins to talk about exhibit twenty never asked somebody it with officer reside that was before mr doing as he just went through and went through all of them in order when he argued he specifically didn't talk about anything but seventeen to one thousand so they were aware of the problem that much was clear so to say that there was well my time just about so i would respectfully ask this court to reverse mr medina's conviction on the grounds that no reasonable juror could have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with the exclusion of exhibits seventeen to twenty and it was clear error to admit them and base a verdict on them