opinion a potentially helpful witness and their theory of the case began with their belief that the sale was for trying to kill or grams of cocaine when the lab test the district court explicitly declined to find him credible or incredible and based on that it would be clearly erroneous for the court to rely on his testimony crane that this sale was for ten does not corroborate this later claim that well it was actually for five that that claim their claim in their plea agreements is based on this theory that well what they thought they had was cocaine and they were intending to sell that to the buyers that is nonsense because as we lay out below those pillows are stored in separate cabinets they're wrapped in different colored material and the drugs themselves are different colors and then you know as jelly on as whatever the deal was for was immaterial their motivations to accept responsibility for that amount of drugs because they were going to be on the hook for them for the time kilos or whatever they were no matter what and every one of the one point three and it was regardless of the amount that's correct how much was the c i don't really i don't think that there is any i believe that there is a claim that  things but whatever it is i don't think it's reliable enough to credit certain scenes secondly what were our core beliefs you know part of was corroborated was corroborated not what the court that was corroborated was the recorded calls where the drug quantity was fluctuating that is not corroborated that does not corroborate of different quantities of cocaine during those calls evidence that even if it was fluid even if it within flaxman there is a conspiracy to sell the cocaine you need evidence that it was a fluid amount witnesses in depositions talk to their lawyers all the time but the judge well i don't think that's the situation that we have here we have already had a direct examination now they can if this is a what's going to come across found the defendant in that case orlando was not limited to just making her dock sions but instead actively participated as a middleman and he did that by relaying information as the defendants did here extending meetings as to when it can stand up and he tested on the eve of the drug transaction as well as being involved in the conspiracy from inception to the conclusion of the conspiracy as both defendants admitted to in this case with respect to the money involved while the flat fee it is smaller than the ultimate drug sale which and i'm i don't want to say i don't think the record reflects that the fee was a thousand dollars i don't think there is information in the record regarding how much the defendants were going to be paid for brokering this deal the thousand dollars i think is the amount that defendant camp is on opening to has agreed to pay perdomo for participating in the deal less i don't think it reflects or some diminishes the fact that the defendants actively participated in this conspiracy not in a minor way but in a substantial way which is what the district court fail moving back to the drug quantity issue at sentencing the evidence before the district court established that in the four days leading up to the drug transaction the defendant's final information about the transaction between the purchasers and the  and because the purchasers and suppliers did not know each other they could only communicate through the defendants during those four days as reflected in the recorded conversations the drug amounts were in flux and the parties were in regular communication regarding that of those parties were on either side of the defendant and communicated communicated through the defend recognized by the defendant the supreme court has held that conversation clause does not apply to sentencing instead the key of sentencing is reliability here the consultation occurred following the of direct examination but before cross examination began it was brief and defense counsel thereafter had the opportunity to vigorously cross examine perdomo file postering briefings briefs and also argue to sentencing hearing it's i don't know that it's a question but it's the common series of the seller's sources that her when once cocaine is very troubling to me i think i know that i'm correct if i say that her one is roughly three times the cost of cocaine in the wholesale context and separate hiding from the since in separate packaging the different appearance of the drugs all makes in syria very unlikely i have to imagine from other recent case means that the wholesale value of these drugs was somewhere between half a million and a million dollars that would be the kind of earth that would get that sellers can't find their supplie involved from thirteen to eighteen seventeenth which was the time frame of the conspiracy is not is not relevant to that inquiry because every single defendant admitted that they were involved for that  time so that does not somehow separate the defendants or make them more culpable than any of the other defendants or the average participate in the in the conspiracy examination is really the issue here secondly judge with with response in response to the argument i just want the court to consider that the government waited two years after this case began with the defendant's arrest until just minutes