raise three issues on the peel and consistent with the court's order i would like to focus on what i believe to be the difference between those the three issues that we've raised between counsel and myself in both the briefs and the reply graves the first issue is passion of the second issue that is and that relates to an issue of the admissibility of hearsay testimony during the course of the trial during the course of the trial the defendant himself did not testify the defendant put the government to their proof in this case relative to one important issue and that was whether or not drugs that were found in the sea in a say had what was concededly his home in the home of a young lady by the name of mrs volts ms vulture who was his girlfriend were his drugs or the drugs welch that was the entirety of the issue that was argued during the course of the jury trial before the district court a lot during the course of that questioning the officer in this particular case the testify that she was not of a participant during the course of the trial and that age an absolute she said the officer answered that's correct she did not have access to the room did she indicate that anybody did have access to it that basically who had dominion and control over the segment the time we learned later during the course of the trial on cross examination that miskolczi himself was a drug dealer to undermine the government's theory that only mr nielsen would have access to reason to deal drugs but to go back to the specific point you to this court and call cut is indicated in that case that case was a very interesting case where there were major amounts of drug appellant in that case guilty and notwithstanding the fact that the defendant went in that case was actually found in possession of the drugs he was there when the grocer found this court re man and reversed and remanded in recent the government's overkill went to the informant in the search warrant that the defendant had sold her drugs and she observed drugs there i believe on december thirty first i think the search warrant was executed on january the seventh but about a page before it that's correct your honor but there but the evidence  and i'm always willing to be wrong but i don't think i'm wrong on this one your honor that relates back to about two years before that time what we argued in this case and what we what we argued before this court is the issue in this case was whether he had been a drug dealer no question about it this court has ruled on numerous occasions that the mere presence at the scene where drugs are found is not sufficient upon which one can necessarily impute dominion and control on the other hand  the residence there was evidence that she had sold drugs in the past there was no direct evidence that she even sold drugs from that particular residence in the past which is one of the reasons that we believe in this case the hearsay testimony was not on y not necessary in this case but it directed the jury in an unfair way to focus on the defendant relative to that and interestingly in that regard your honor later on during the course of the due respect to my brother at the bar below the u s attorney trying to get hearsay and about that very issue again and that instance the judge stained the objection we think that this court has put down a very firm ru relative to this type of information and that is and i used that phrase once again and show this type of unconfrontable overkill and these type of cases in effect directs the jury in an unfair stuff she said that she bought it for meals then just a few days before after they had smoked it together down in his basement and how she also described a big bag of the stuff that he had with him when they were there together when at trial she drugs and the drugs that came out of the safe it was disks unique kind of methamphetamine called glass shards people describe that and they matched both of them with that kind of drug just a lot of other evidence as your honor pointed out that ti to some hash to try to but there was no doubt that the methamphetamine was all coming from nielsen not just for a friend also it was neilson who owns that house it was nielsen who didn't have a job and who had lots of cash in his bank account found it's also important to know the government never argued that's hearsay statement and its closing argument before the jury never made its case for a new else in having possession of those drugs based on that hearsay statement so it just wasn't something that was before the jury when they were considering the case and given the evidence of all this one hears a statement came in very briefly no comment on a fight court the defense counsel or the garcia has appealed the decision of the trial court which