to significant and prejudicial errors in admitting evidence which require a reversal and a new trial the first that we address in the brief but not the first i'd like to argue is the use of secondary evidence a video surveillance admitting evidence of a large cash seizure in june of two thousand and ten which the district court wrongly allowed under the doctrine of intrinsic evidence i'd like to take that second point first narrowed so significantly in the green case in twenty tad and well one of the say one of the many interesting and useful things i was reading from grief is that you can't evaluate whether evidence directly proves the crime charged which is the strict definition of intrinsic evidence without reminding yourself exactly but one structure this came up in greed itself when the court focused on what does the indictment say was the comes was the crime there and a particular attempt a distribution of cocaine here the charge is a conspiracy defined as the nelson rodriguez drug trafficking organization and the charger is not some kind of vertical conspiracy that reads up and back to somewhere in mexico or south america through levels of distributors and smugglers the charge conspiracy is one centered on nelson rodriguez and his distribution of cocaine from jasper street in kensington to philadelphia in rodrigues paid for teens one point nine connection shown between the seizure of the money and miguel or tease and to a lesser extent between miguel archies and the rodriguez business but my point which is actually what i write where i was starting is actually a step prior to that which is that the role of intel ortiz as a supplier to nelson rodriguez is his role in the charge conspiracy looking at what we mean by intrinsic evidence where the loading of money onto the truck to take away is no longer part of the net's not regas conspiracy this is now the first stop of people outside that conspiracy the distributor distributes drugs to the to the person who was the center of the charge conspiracy that's part of that's going to be part of the conspiracy wrong with his other supplier and getting and he gets paid when he goes it assuming this is archie's now and i do want to get back to your question those are his underlings goes away with the money or he goes away with the money and some underling raider goes and meets a truck to take that money somewhere else this is words that was being purchased with the two point one million had anything to do with rodriguez right and then fact the government disavowed that position he was district court although they try to bring it back in their brief so that's outside a strict green definition of what it means to be intrinsic but even if you get beyond that only if you get beyond that do you get to the three points but judge to boys point that the judge was excepted from the government's argument and  pay his supplier or invest in real estate or go gambling and or whatever is a not facilitating rodriguez's distribution of cocaine in kensington and that warehouse has his own life and his own activities and not all of those activities are part of the conspiracy in the strict intrinsic sense if you come something logically relevant interesting part amount of money and then two statements by forties quoted by rodriguez the same highly unreliable witness who the jury believed that is the king p if you want to address the harmless error side of the green related issue before moving to the other issues for me any argument is we don't have any burden they have the burden to show that the arab was hard was that is that it's not reasonably likely that would have affected the jury's verdict and here what we have as i was kind of saying before is we have sort and the agent testimony is seen where cheese drive around and one on one occasion see him they have these video cameras set up and it's actually ties to the other shoe that look at the front in the back of the warehouse on one video i run agent says i can identify which he's being the one who was driving that truck in but unless you've what i i have been trying to figure out as i grappled with that issue even initially in reading your bridge is how the effect here on the jury their own eyes except seen by video with their own eyes right on what they should be able to start only as to the week weeks when in viewing the video they took notes and made that witness said perhaps somewhat incredibly you know i remember seeing this it was about the testimony that's true so what can we do about that if i have to admit when i read that i thought it was a little incredible isn't it trial judge making that call and how can we append that because there's a rule for a three filter through which this testimony comes before it even gets to the jury that the rules it has tell us that the trial ju just want to say the other safeguard was that the agents should victims or was free it here ritual six o two and the hearsay rules and right of themselves to what they themselves perceived in viewing the way the video and not what they were told by the members of their team and yet he agents think like a team they talk about we at the trial and they don't didn't get here and the judge didn't enforce despite expressing annoyance that it did not enforce that rule to protect the jury from from this just said over ruled on those rights but i think he said rule the after the witness said i don't remember seeing this i don't need a video i don't need a note i i remember seeing this i'm sorry says objection  the run about the measurement of time that record that is represented by a thirty year sentence imposed on a forty six year old man with diabetes and a life sentence that is to say a sentence which in either event will require that he died behind bars and the government says i really didn't mean c n n something else by a lot less than a lot less time but we don't know what it was and that doesn't help them because you're here are you serious really realize then hit we read this sentencing transcript is certainly suggested that the court made no error here a goal what he saw is a difference between the two sentences was not depended upon the qualitatively different i should say that the judge could impose a sense of that cities are correct and that is a legal proposition and in fact when that struck me as being really the major factor at work here i asked my clerks to see find anything wrong they came up with with the first circuit case that says just that so get it that is if that if we accept it as a legal proposition well as a court have to say execution he said that you know i'm sitting here i'm scheduled to be executed at six am it was supposed to be five am but i had a good lawyer so i think as a practical matter or for rodriguez taking this money to pay a supplier or pick up another load he has she is the supplier we have you have to get out of your mind this is a drug business