here's my difficulty with your argument and maybe you can help me out and i understand the motion to change venue was raised pretrial and was not renewed later in that situation don't we the motion is yet prior to the close then it isn't that way well i'm not saying that it's waived i'm saying what he said we're looking to see whether the judge made a mistake the only time the judge was asked was pretrial so we should be looking at seems to me at the things that the judge had in front of him which was basically the face of the plant and what i'm trying to in billings montana what he did did the judge misunderstand the indictment to some of the rules of evidence which says once the court makes the finity of ruling on the record admitting or tooting evidence of either at or before trial a party may need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of christian high school now if you've got a defendant that's raised with it's a reasonable doubt the fence when he testified in this case he did testify we've got evidence coming in about the car for pot that is a minor and then it's oh that's very prejudicial but the fact that it is so different and the fact that the judge gave karsh unary instructions would suggest that it is a prejudicial if it's not the same and if there are cautionary instructions right in judge i'd like to address that on the issue of cautionary instructions the cautionary instructions except in two instances i don't have anything we've got a problem here because not only do you have to defend it's now you've got two indictments and you've got separate conspiracies over here in the in the penumbra of this case in the out in the field someplace where this fellow roared was getting big chunks of marijuana and those cautionary instructions do not tell the jury this is only introduced because the government wants to prove this issue for example a pattern or the fact that a defendant denies that he knows these people and we want to show that he does have knowledge and the judge doesn't say that he doesn't restrict them to defend the orcs and i i don't have a problem with your waiver argument it seems to me judge abused his discretion here's why the prejudice strikes me as frankly not overwhelming at all and the fact that it happened while the kid was a minor a strikes me as very helpful in setting up a defense of blaming everything on his mother and a lot of facts to support that kind of defense and and the probative value really is significant so while judges might differ on whether they'd let it in it's hard to see why it's an abuse of discretion and i'd like to address the probative value first judge because this only thing i remember from that is that the same things means the same thing as well and what are we fighting about in this case that this evidence helps us prove we don't know i mean is is there tangential player that's when the prejudice from rule four hundred four b is the most dramatic in the case that half side you know will go into discussing the ones talk about the problems of prejudice are compounded when you have multiple defendants and you have multiple counts and in this case you have multiple indictments two different grand juries on a separate page and came forth with two different indictments of different different kinds and basically one of them is a marijuana conspiracy the other one's a out all these things that don't have anything to do with the elements of proof and that's why that's that's one of the reasons it's not material it doesn't have anything to do with relevant  indictments and we've got two different defendants and the trouble with this type of evidence in front of the jury is that they tend to lump all these people together and that they have a propensity to deal in some get your honors gems of course a u s attorney i may just take a half a minute my argument that i've been practicing for about thirty five years now this is the second time i've been able to argue this court magnificent courtroom and i guess if there's any way that  convicted pled guilty and before she went to prison in august of ninety eight that's when she concocted the conspiracy with her son with the serial to get this thing going to set him up in business so when she goes to prison you're all prisons in august he received take us back to the beginning and tell us what you think the evidence is and why it's relevant to show his concern a conspiracy in this case he was involved in  son painted car for whom surely one of the coconspirators and got a pound of marijuana grech where is the evidence that he knew that marijuana came from his mother so that when he took the stand later and said i don't know years later he he was in quote involved in shipping marijuana with his mother one year later on one year later so the fact that he that he got a little marijuana preventing a car means that he and i think that regarding that for me that was once again a cautionary instruction no objection it's a brief interlude it was not argued he was putting the proper context in the case of which i don't think the problem is the terms of the instruction i thought the issue  in i'm losing you count that this observing question i think we're trying to deal with is why hitting a pound of marijuana of a painting car is evidence that a year later he was involved trafficking in marijuana with his clinic mother by the purpose of himself being able to control whether he smoked it whether he delivered it a pound quantity of marijuana which they distributable one of the of marijuana his ability instructions he claimed he'd never been to montana he actually had a videotape of him in montana that was played to the jury just been asked and also coco testified that he was whether when she delivered a truckload of marijuana to montana earlier on which went to segal said no i'm only going to take what the jury found two hundred sixty two point five grams of a mixture of methamphetamine he then using some note capital b into the one point one which is that it's in looking at all of this and using the guidelines once again as advisor judge people noted that he noted that the thirty is just a technical error we put it on he found all of this it's sensing he says beyond doubt so no matter what for four additional points for leadership that's again he says i had no doubt and it was picked off as the number of people that were involved in the leadership and then the continuing aspect of the conspiracy even after was taken down in august of ninety eight and then the additional two points for obstruction of somehow involved in the past ergo one must be quote involved now that's exactly the same argument as saying if person committed a similar crime in the past they must be committing a similar crime now and that is by definition propensity and that's why the evidence should not have been a