stayed there on and off that he didn't stay there all the time mr archie and his name was not on the lease in the apartment the only thing that was found that connected him to that apartment was a court receipt fairing the landlord had no personal knowledge of what mr r to get did when he was in that apartment or why he went in and out the landlord was unable to say whether or not i believe there was testimony that when he was in the apartment with another of the co defendants whether they played music whether they ate dinner why he was in that apartment so to make the leap from the fact that he had access to that apartment to making that apartment his not and the witness says yes for the language of the question isn't that's the witness's testimony i still think that it was a great jump to go from the fact that he had access and could go in and out of the partment to making it his residence there's there's a fine distinction there and that's what this court relied on during the appeal was the fact that it was uncontested during the appeal that the apartment terms of the evidence but i don't want to disrupt your whole argument so go ahead and whatever you like yes or not out of what we're talking about is to western union receipts that were found inside of after that appeal he filed a motion to recall the mandate that went to this court this court reviewed that and decided because it was so factually specific that that should be taken out as a twenty t argument and i don't mean this to suggest i have made up my mind i'm still listening seems to me unless i'm missing something that if boils down to saying that it's government misconduct for the you're telling us that because of the qualification or lack of full knowledge of crosby about what he did there that it was misconduct for the government to argue the facts that the witness that stated in this testimony don't we're not only arguing that that the government mischaracterized the apartment asking mr r take its residents but there were other things that the government argued all pertaining to unit ten that were either evidence that was inadmissible or just straight out misstatement of the facts and one of those pertains to the fact that the government argued that mr r c a go reside at the mayfair residence where  misconduct let me ask another question i understood that there was a police officer officer cress i think who went into this unit ten and talked to a guy who said his name was marino so  petition late i don't believe the petition was late it's my understanding that when this court it wasn't actually filed and entitled motion for a rehearing it was filed a motion to recall the mandate some other money laundering counts and that the only thing that this argument about this unit ten apartment in the receipts and it relates to are two counts correct and my view of the evidence is there is direct evidence of the cross the testimony that links them to the receipts there yes plus all the other evidence and circumstantial yes it's not like you're one of them so i don't i don't think the the other evidences are relevant to the scales being the only thing you're going to see in a closet not in the bedroom that wasn't discovered by anybody at trial he wasn't discovered by anybody in front of the ninth circuit the argument that i made in closing argument vary but in the words that i used vary between this was his residence this was his apartment and i mentioned one time that these items were found in his bedroom the government's position is that it has no effect as to the fashionable aspects of this case because what was found in the apartment along with the identification from the landlord that this man lived here we are permitted to argue to the jury in to this court ashwell eyewitness testimony if this means lived in this apartment it doesn't matter that and the jury wish me to reject all of these items and they didn't it doesn't matter that they didn't know what kind of music was played or what they talked about near inside the apartment and frankly people are pretty shocked if a manager knew that much but what he said was he lived there and what they found inside just to clarify something for me i understand that the receipt with his name on it is found somewhere according to the policeman's report maybe somewhere else in the apartment not the bedroom it was in a foster home with ok go over the western unions found in the bedroom or where they found motion to strike if that officer creston statement before the jury was more objection that the bedroom was r t a is correct and in fact your honor the government or i since i made the closing argument i receipt found from the state of alaska in the apartment was a got entrance or is is the other evidence of the other evidence of our tiago selling drugs or doing other money laundering is that relevant it wasn't in here and how that a closing argument that we kept to our bargain with the court with these limiting instructions and nobody who was involved in that trial from the district court judge to the chancellor's nobody breathed a word or about going outside the scope of the judge's instructions to the point bringing all this to your honor's attention to the state we apply to comply with the court's ruling here's why it worked that room was mentioned because the officer says on the stand it was found in the bedroom i just wanted to clarify on a couple of issues the court was saying that these this argument only went to the two western union receipts found in unit and when in fact we would submit that it not only goes to the to those two western union receipts but it also goes to the other i believe eight counts involving other western union receipts because what was allowed to happen was because the government inferred that if you found mr r t a guilty of the two western union receipts found in unit ten you could infer that he sent the other western union receipts because of the inner connection of the addresses in the names on the receipt furthermore these western union receipts for over x listed in the conspiracy the straight case was was tried an october of one thousand nine hundred four and at the time the standard jury began at believe in february and that was the basis for the multiple conspiracy and struction so even though the jury could have found him guilty or it believed that he participated and  the drug sales we don't know what they might have thought that that was part of the other conspiracy and i think the separate conspiracy under the multiple conspiracy instructions i mean we don't have any way of knowing