government there were some government's official while that's correct they were not close enough to the table to hear any of the conversation and matter of fact they testified they did not even see anything  and stands to mr selig you or your testimony is incredible it's incredulous it's why would someone you never met before on first meeting start talking about criminal conduct and when there was no mention of any treasury counterfeit treasury checks either counterfeit or legitimate crimes to join again ultimately to have a transfer of true counterfeit treasury checks when underneath the table the correct pronunciation and it means sharpshooter and recently in the iraq war they have had several articles on the east using the talian from the british army it's also because the court fred rally jr for the government took the extent of the defense's arguments go to an entrapment defense it's important to note that the defense waived entrapment at the outset of the court trial the district and defense counsel said i don't think so your honor at the close of the evidence in closing argument the defense did not argue entrapment instead the defense's arguments focused on knowledge such as it's important to note to the extent the arguments about the relationship between the cooperator mr sellers and the defendant go to entrapment that's way now to the extent that those arguments were i think that's all they are i don't think  appropriate but even at the close of the other hands after cooperator mr sellers had testified at length and after the district court had inquired into the relationship between mr sellers and the defendant the defense still did not argue entrapment so in those circumstances the government's admits that a waiver really is the appropriate way of root review of viewing the record to the extent that the arguments about again about the relationship defendant to engage in criminal conduct at rough transcript page one hundred three the court put that question to the cooperative to cooperate or said now the district court then followed up and asked you were just playing along and the prior offenses with essentially moved and so the government in reliance upon the representation that there would be no entrapment defense did not seek to introduce evidence of his prior product fence and that evidence was not received  so as your honor is pointed out there was potential republican and that was not introduced because the understanding of both the court and the government was that entrapment defense was not on the table i didn't getting back to the issue that there was other evidence introduced to corroborate the cooperators testimony first there was there were the agents who saw the transaction take place on september nineteenth i'm sorry i guess of time one thousand three thousand and one  danny's there was a postal inspector a secret service agent they did see the defendant pull out a white envelope from his jacket lean into the table with his hands under the table now as the court pointed out in  argument earlier the agents did not see the actual hand off underneath the table but what the agents did see was consistent with the testimony provided by the cooperate or mr selig mr sellers testified that he received the checks under the table and in fact the defense did not argue in its brief did not contest the fact that the defendant actually possessed the envelope now the fact that the defendant and of the envelope over an surreptitious manner certainly suggest what he knew that he knew that what was inside the envelope was illegal but there was yet further evidence at the time of the defendant's arrest officer at the agents who searched his jacket found handwritten notes  with a list of checks and checks check amounts with a specific reference to check washing i believe that the statement was next to a deposit check amount and amount of money he had written on the note if rejected washed and deposit there were other handwritten notes with personal information belonging to other people credit ratings social security numbers there was a handwritten note listing twenty one places at which the defendant could she could cash checks there was in addition a photocopy of a credit card and a driver's license belong to another person all this was found on the defendant's person at the time of the arrest and what it shows is that the defendant is familiar with and and indeed was likely involved in check fraud credit card fraud and identity theft and all that goes to the defendant's knowledge with respect to b treasury checks that he can get over on september seventh and the counterfeit cashier's check that was found on his person at the time of his arrest on september nineteenth in addition to that evidence there was the teenage conversation this one taped conversation on september seventh two thousand and one before the chart treasury check transaction in that conversation the defendant asks the cooperate or if the the mr sellers whether his contact is still interested in buying still interested in buy and from the context of the conversation it's clear that what they're talking about buying is checks there's a reference to ten checks in increments of a thousand and fifteen hundred later on in the conversation the defendant asks the cooperator about a contact that the cooperative purported to have who possessed h x in the defendant remarks that they could cash a lot of checks that conversation indeed would support this verdict given the standard of review in the deferential standard review even apart from the cooperators testimony i was just at the defense it oral argument stated that the district court found the cooperate or in the quad cooperated testimony incredible but if you look at the transcript as a whole what appears to have happen is the district court w didn't understand that d d was the person who had referred the the cooperate or mr sellers to the defendant and also didn't understand how the cooperate or mr sellers recognized the defendant when he called the cooperator mr sellers provided a narrative account told the story from start to finish the gist requests understood those issues and in fact at the close of the evidence in an argument the district