good morning your honour's may appeal appellant he was convicted of conspiracy to just cocaine for the purpose of describe usually on the issue is whether or not there substantial evidence in the case the government relies upon three purported facts true show he was ordered leahy involved in the founds once was a case where the government proposed four different facts show somebodies involvement in the crime nec case and the court analyzed each each of the facts for separately found each fact to be lacking and then noted that zero times fo i believe that there was some i were calls from or there was some something mentioned about him coming down to bug coming up from mexico to buy a car but i think the defense really relied on the fact that each of these three factors that supposedly showed his first in terms of his supposedly being a lookout court will see he's standing in the yard by himself he's standing in a driveway there are some vehicles there there's nobody else around there's no need at that point in time for anybody really to be a lookout the other people are in the house which i would also suggest shows he's not part of the conspiracy if he's standing in the driveway then he could be looking for people who might be walking up the driveway people who are passing by on the street it's then when people under the yard he walks away from there and he's not looking down the he's not looking down the driveway he's companies looking at what's going on with the cars which there are a couple people standing around one contended if you look at the tape that he's with acting as a lookout at that point in time and also earlier in the day when the drugs were actually being taken from one vehicle to another which is you would think would be the most important time for a for a lookout is there was no but look out there are so i think if you look at the totality of the facts this would be perhaps a slight of a dense of being a lookout perhaps scant evidence of being a lookout but that is not sufficient for substantiality of the evidence to be a lookout or to sustain a conviction and i've cited some cases in in my opening grave which talks about that and talks about when somebody is or is not a lookout and i concentrated my briefing cases where there person obviously was convict in the court found well even giving the evidence in most life favorable to the prosecution there still is not sufficient evidence and i would submit that that is true of the his supposedly being a lookout it's it's reasonable with both the hypothesis of him being a lookout and it's reasonable that he's not  very very close to what was a three hundred thousand dollars in cash that had just been placed by one of the other guys into the trunk of the of the funder yes your honor and there's no facts to show that he knew what was in the box the fact the box was sealed there was no way for him t you had you had expert testimony about the way the drug gangs work and about how careful they are about about who participates in any they're transporting drugs or transporting large large amounts of money well that that is true your honor but he did not draw from the experts testimony was that people who are not a feel that people who don't know what's going on are not allowed in the vicinity of large drug or large cash transactions these guys are moving from one car to another three hundred over three hundred thousand dollars and in to boxes and he is right there at the trunk with them whether that physically touch the boxes about these open the boxes to look at them the experts testimony was in general all we don't see people who are not who don't know what's equivocal it's not clear and it doesn't rule out the hypothesis of the innocent that maybe at some point in time he you know not every case falls into the ruler or the the hypothesis that  stated what do you do about the number of phone again this is merely some circumstantial evidence it doesn't show any kind of knowledge of what's going on there we have ten numbered phones he has phone labeled number one we have phones in my house but we don't label them with numbers well everybody has different ways of doing things and you know for somebody like myself who perhaps is not always the most organized person in the world that might be a good thing i don't think that show are you just merely making it guidelines calculation but i think the court was required to do more than just stay well i agree with the probation report i think the court was required to go through and the fact there's some evidence is not sufficient and look at all the factors pointing towards innocence your honor there was no mention of him at all in any of the discretions prior to the to the  there was no  there was no evidence really other than that he happened to be at one place when something was going on with no real evidence showing that he knew what was on i would have finally have one in the republican right  may please the court marquis on behalf of the united states district court in describing the evidence in this case called overwhelming and overwhelming it was why defendant was only at one place on one day it was a very important day for this drug conspiracy because that was the day the money was being collected and being taken down to mexico in this case there was evidence direct and circumstantial evidence of defendants involvement in that conspiracy on that day for instance there was a telephone call where he was told by the main source of cocaine  that he was picking up the receipts and that he would have everything for him later that same day there was a later phone call where the rangers were made to meet at a specific location and the source of cocaine law enforcement had already seized at the time  rest thirty three kilograms of cocaine and over one hundred eighty thousand dollars in cash and here is the defendant calling being called by him and being told that he's got to pick up a receipt which the drug agent testified in his training experience as a reference narcotics proceeds and that's a term he's heard before used as a reference in other wiretap investigations as a reference to narcotics proceeds and that this defendant didn't just have that phone call but then he showed up at the house and as the evidence showed he didn't just simply showed up to the house there was first a meeting at a whole local short distance from the house and it's the defendant not the driver of the car who knows the main source of the cocaine in jail rios it's the defendant who goes  over there's no need to introduce each other there's no looking for each other as the testimony came out there was no phone calls about what you're wearing a what kind of car you're driving they just went right up to each other met with each other and then just before they got to the stash house if the defendant who get s stays in the car why the source angel rios gets out of his car and gets into the car of the defendant and it's the two of them who drive up inside the stash asked and that's an important fact the other person the current didn't get to go into the stash house he get to go back where the money was and where the drugs where it was only this defendant who was able to go back there and what happens there well the evidence is three different officers testify the defendant acted as a lookout first officer testified that he was on the street in front of the house and saw the defendant walk down the driveway and appear to look up and down the street the officer in the airship testified that by looking down he could see the defendant looking down the driveway that that was the only way out of the house that was the only way into the house and that's where he was looking and the third case agent also testified and on cross examination by defense counsel he reiterated that he was looking at a look as he was acting as a look at he wasn't just simply standing there looking down the driveway to his head was moving back and forth obviously when the money's being moved he has to move away from the driveway and he walks over to the car and there is the evidence showed as after each box scheme was put into the trunk it was the defendant who walked over and act did something in the back of that trunk a reasonable inference for the jury would be he had just had the boxes that were in that trunk and that was the reason the inference that the agents testified to during the trial again showing an ownership interest in the boxes showing his involvement in the conspiracy and we also had the number telephones as the court pointed out with the defendant having the number one telephone and the other defendant who was outside the residence having the number six tel that i know your honor it is it is part of the record i don't i don't think there's anything to be gained from looking at the videotape because credibility findings were already really determined by the jury and that's not before the court and the evidence  agencies gave their opinion as to what that videotape meant what was demonstrated on that videotape there was no other evidence that was introduced to contradict their opinion or contradict what was shown on the videotape so i don't the government doesn't have any opposition to it being admitted over you by the court with respect to make trying to make a credibility finding or trying to determine whether what the agents testified to was accurate at that's already being decided by the jury in terms of their verdict  of evidence that he played a minimal or a minor role in this offense that he was substantially less culpable than his co defendants the court specifically pointed to the testimony accor at trial the expert testimony the role of a individual involved in the transfer of money how it was a vital part of the organization that the money had to be transferred back to mexico so that more cocaine could be brought into the country and the court can impose a role and has been just found that he was as culpable as the other court also found seems to be reasonable and why that's counsel has not raised the results argument me pal account has not raised the reason was argument in this case court did find one of the factors and thirty five fifty three a day that one hundred eighty eight month sentence was a reasonable sentence no showing that he knew or understood that to mean drug receipts could have been you know i'm going to bring you i bought some stuff for you with them to drop you at the grocery store i'll bring you the receipts for that are sure it's coincidental that occurs on the day of of that they're moving all these drugs and all of this cash is well i don't think coincidence you are right on her but i don't think that coincidences enough to convict my client and you have an expert who testified that in drug lingo that receipt stood for something looking somewhere to me that that somehow they can know what's going through said i ask your your honour's to look at the cases that i've cited in my opening brief and i think if you compare the of this case with the facts of those cases particularly as to the notion of lookout and dominion and control over the over the box i think you'll see that this case really falls within the parameters of those other cases and the factual substantial similarities were found with the court this court has found in the other cases that there was not substantial evidence for a conviction i