thank council the only issue presented for review ms roberts case is whether or not there was sufficient evidence in the record to sustain a conviction under subsection a one of the crack house statute as court's aware intamin as this court decided that it was insufficient under subsection a wind to substitute the intent of another party in order to uphold the conviction under subsection a one let me ask you just my concern is here and maybe you can help me with him when he proportionately made the sale down the street down the street in the car correct there was some evidence that there was money in her purse her only person in the car correct and she was the only woman in the car that's correct ledger although the agent testified he couldn't determine from anything in there who wrote it right ok now my question is this taking those facts for why couldn't and then she looked at the place with her daughter is it a reasonable inference case that gentleman was a landlord he was convicted under both subsections they want an a t m and in throwing out the conviction under subsection one the court said it's insufficient that he knew or maybe he was fine with someone selling drugs out of was the drug dealer there was i believe the record of the case in the case one hundred ounces of crack cocaine in the microwave hundred ounces of crack cocaine wouldn't fit in a microwave that was one hundred grams that's still a significant chunk of crack and the court found that it didn't matter that she knew this was a drug dealer dealing drugs out of the house and didn't even matter if she maybe she had some involvement the question was whether it was her purpose to use the facility drug distribution point or a place for packaging drugs or she had to be the one who is packaging the drugs i think that's what verner says and it's subsection e two is the sort of vicarious liability statute where you're on the hook for what other people do if that sort of a knowing your knowing what their purposes but she wasn't charged with that she was charged under subsection one and so it's materially distinguishable i don't quite understand we say she has to be actually packaging the good logically say this was a drug a drug business and she was keeping drug records her name was in it her handwriting was in it that seems more than just knowing things were going on i don't think that's what the record indicates page seventy nine there's no identifiers just if you wrote that correct you know sort of the signatures on the other pages question so there were no there was no handwriting analysis done on the drug ledger ph correct answer no sir there was not there's no expert's going to come in and tell us who wrote that in comparison with any of these defendants handwriting correct not that i'm where that's pretty much the records to fight to who testified as was her her handwriting special agent smith testified that the cross examination was very well done but that doesn't mean the jury couldn't believe that he had done if i had her handwriting are you saying that because i didn't like handwriting martin nobody identified anybody's handwriting there was a there was a statement made that there was a drug ledger that ms roberts name appeared in it but there was no records somewhere in a special agent schmidt's testimony i believe i don't believe there's a great deal testimony about the contents of that document how do you deal with what her involvement in the drug in the drug  operation out of the car your honor the evidence indicates that ms roberts was subsequently determined to be driving roderick williams car he gets out of the car special agent smith testifies he sees williams go over to another truck do something in the truck he didn't see anything changing hands he saw roderick williams hands go into the truck something happened there's already a warrant for robert williams arrest for drug dealing so he inferred that robert williams completed some sort of drug transaction subsequently he gets in the vehicle with rocks there's a stop they check the purse there's money in the purse there's money on him the two the two sums add up to thirty two hundred bucks but to plumb the record for for more reasonable conclusions you can draw from this there was a lot of evidence roderick williams was involved in other illicit activities under the guy the term nightlife which i think is code for prostitution there's believe that there's sufficient evidence but let's even assuming that the kid if you can put a good enough shine on the evidence to say that's a drug deal she was driving the car that's not enough evidence under verner's to convict her of maintaining a place for drug purpose because that just shows some limited involvement as verner's the mother might have had with them there are several things but you would not exclude the jury's ability to consider that as part of the evidence sure and looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the government they can consider that along with all the other evidence but there's a under subsection a one there's a different standard of proof for mens rea then there is under subsection a to a one it's got to be her purpose which means she's got to be the drug dealer not somebody else and the government is i think accurately characterize the record with respect to the two relationships roderick williams is a drug dealer paul roberts is a drug dealer's girlfriend that's what the wreckage is i find it a little hard to morning your honour's may please the court my name is john far and i represent byron williams the only issue we briefed from his trial and conviction was the idea that  counts two and count one is the conspiracy counts two and for completed offenses and five and six or attempts under the block bird test of course the test for multiplicity an indictment is whether each separately violated statutory provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not now that seems simple enough on the surface but it's not applied scientifically or ministerial and that's what gets us into the idea that  these counts should be considered multiplicity as the taylor court in a footnote addressed the fact that twenty one u s t section eight four six addresses quote unquote attempt or conspiracy conceptually it conceptually it makes sense and i would point out that roderick williams codefendant prevailed on this issue when it came to an attempt and i would commend for the court's reading magistrate roberts recommendation on that point which appears that starting at page forty five in the excerpt is very well reasoned and thought out and roger williams prevailed on that point the government says that it didn't respond to that and that's sort of how it came to be but the simple fact is that roger or excuse me magistrate judge roberts didn't leave anything to chance and that decision next issue was whether the court should have quote unquote considered it mr williams byron williams attorney brought it up at the trial and said the court should grant that motion saying it's the same as roger williams motion but the court said well i'm going to deny it without prejudice of this kind in my term terminology in my brief that wasn't considering it i meant that the court should consider it on the merits right then and there the government in its brief says that i'm mistaken that the court did consider it but i meant considering it take a close look at whether these counts are multiple issues thank you to connect him to the conspiracy i think it's telling that the government and its reach relies on facts like he and defendant byron williams both like cadillacs and they both went to seattle what evidence there is relates only to the purchase and sale of cocaine not to his participation in this conspiracy so the fact that for example he had a set of skills in his car could tie him to some other conspiracy or his own project or whatever if anything but that facts like that do not tie him to this conspiracy neither does it time to this conspiracy that some particular person at some time alleged to have bought extremely thin evidence that that was a drug purchase or sale of any kind there was nothing was observed to change hands there was no no cocaine was found in his car if you believe that was a truck transaction you also have to believe that he less that he sold drugs that were related to this conspiracy i would also remind my portions of my co counsels argument with respect to the maintaining drug premises except i certainly don't concede that mr rhetoric williams was the drug dealer and  his girlfriend the evidence that the primary purpose or a principal purpose of living in their apartment with his girlfriend and her child was for the distribution of drugs  evidence of that is very very thin and it consists of the paraphernalia that was found in the apartment and the testimony of one witness shit that she'd been there at some drug party and purchased drugs perhaps on of the evidence is very thin the questions wasn't sufficient evidence for a jury to make a finding i understand that your honor and and if that's all it takes to establish that a premises comes under the statute then any person charged with any drug violation seems to be at risk of being charged with maintaining a premises because it's simply he lives there and someone testified that he dealt drugs and that that's what the evidence is and it's difficult to see how any residents of any person who uses drugs could possibly be not a drug premises under that if that's all it takes to violate the statute and i don't think that's what please the court crandall randell was just u s attorney i tried this case i would like to address first the sufficiency of the evidence issue with regard to roderick seems to be the primary issue with regard to him and i would suggest that the record shows that there were at least four coconspirators of testify in this case the most important of which was the lady who is in charge of the seattle operation of this drug operation her name was i know as lomax a son she had a relationship with the main character in this case byron williams and what him apart from his partner roderick williams was that byron had the source of supply in seattle and he's the one that bankrolled getting that cocaine up here to anchorage  relationship with her she organized and managed this the seattle side of the operation he recruited couriers she attain the cocaine that was going to ship she scheduled flights and cetera et cetera  also traveled to alaska and she also took cash from the drug operation back to seattle to purchase more product she testified to a couple of very important things in this case that go directly to the establishment of an agreement between roderick williams and byron williams and as to their relationship as being a conspiracy and the first thing she said on one occasion when she was transferred transporting money back to seattle between twenty five and thirty five thousand dollars she was told by byron williams that half of this money came from roderick to pay for his share of the drugs that were going to be shipped in the future so he's a partner with williams and that's what william said secondly another thing she she testified to in this court was the fact that byron being the main guy here and bankrolling this operation complained about the fact that roderick wasn't paying his fair share of the expense money which is a standard complain i imagine of a businessman but it certainly shows the relationship between two and it certainly shows the existence of a conspiracy we had another guy testify but a name of kevin washington calvin washington and he was one of the guys at the airport firing with the three of these guys show up to meet this particular courier on this particular night and the night she got caught and washington although he had difficulty with portions of this testimony did concede in the record certainly as a result of his plea to conspiracy that he knew that the woman coming in on the plane was a drug courier and i would submit that he knew the guy he said all right i assume i assume that roderick was driving his car i don't know that i know this that washington got out of his car walked over or got out a rider's car walked over  agent a little bit of conversation found out the guy was an agent got back in the car not left very fast i don't know who was driving but it was roderick's car because the agent i recognized the car when he arrested roderick on the street deal in december a few months later the same year and also with regard to the conspiracy we have the testimony of two separate couriers stuckey and surely cocker rock that they present at the ninth avenue residence of biren williams when cocaine arrived they brought it and when cocaine arrived the guys that sell it on the street that are waiting for  arrived to get their share and two separate witnesses testified that roderick showed up to get his package his share of the cocaine for his own distribution that tends to corroborate the existence  certain agreement between both williams i get it i sell it to you you sell it to your people now that cadillac deal the car deal is only important because it shows that the relationship not necessarily drug related but it shows a relationship between byron and roderick which is separate and apart from the drugs except for one little thing the evidence also show that one of the addresses that roderick used in one of his car documents and he was and he stated lomax the son's place in seattle while he's buying his car he was there for a couple of days and this is in may of two thousand and six so everything is happening in this year two thousand and six one of the addresses he used was an address of one of byron williams family members the agent testified either his mother or his grandmother and unconnected a drug and connected address here in the city of anchorage roderick felt free to use that address and of course so that byron i want to his car documents a proof of insurance documents so they both use a neutral address unconnected with the drug in the drug business which i would suggest shows an association between the two common interests and common need for protection so i would submit that when you look at the over the tally the circumstances that a jury would certainly draw the inference reasonably that roderick was engaged in a conspiracy with byron williams and others to distribute drugs that we had several of the members of the conspiracy to testify to that fact that's my as far as the sentencing issue i don't think there's any issue there as far as the maintaining count against roderick i would submit that lesser questions from the court now when we talk about paul roberts a little bit i think there are some very definite distinctions to make the tween paula roberts situation living with brodrick williams then with her nurse case and the vernor's cases i recall it was a was  situation where this woman was living in an apartment with her two children her son was running a drug business or conducting drug business of one sort or another had a part of the apartment but not the whole thing he was using primarily i think separate and apart from her direct exposure not that she didn't know kathleen knew that yes like a great but in this case the drug transactions and drug paraphernalia were found in the she elaborated on that described a big glass table and went to that residence on and on a number of occasions and she was there for that her name is on the lease and then of course you had the  know that book was introduced because she identifies herself in that swamp it least in one thousand unit cation i paula roberts why did the police i read that to the jury i didn't go into a lot of detail or different things in there but one of them was a drug ledger that had monetary amounts associated with weight amounts of cocaine and once i can't find that in the record where that occurs i look at your citations from your brief what point is this judge takes me or does page ninety seven that i can't find where in the record the notebook is described it's described very sparingly it's described very sparingly i when i have to have more than very sparingly well it is there anything you say that it's got this statement and it to the police or something what else is there in that to connect her to the no book there were other communications in there but directly proof  doesn't prove it was it was it was not proven it was not shown the only thing that i saw that was had her name on is where she wrote a letter where she identified herself so that was it and there was nothing about cause what and what you would charge and where is that where is that notebook now i would assume it's in the possession of the day and i take it it's something that you can get back and i would assume so would you mind doing that and  is correct as far as i went through with council there is circumstance there certainly is good circumstantial evidence of other records that she knew that he was engaged in the sales drive correct guy did was sell drugs she lived with him we had a trial together but the shop live together was ok but what what what i says it is the fact that she participated with him in the car incident she was part of that deal counsel forgot to mention that as part of that little drug transaction she drove around the block she dropped him off he did his deal she left drove around the block smart fuse she's a few guys from the scene and comes back and picks them up the money is in her purse on the console the scales are there i would submit that that shows an active participation by her rather curious i think you can say that but doesn't show  i have nothing else to offer on the issue of the paula robert and i was to take before you can get that then you know i'll try and get it today we're going to be here other defend it yes unless the court has questions about byron i have nothing to add to that i think it's pretty clear from the record that that the issue of multiplicity is not an issue at all in this case and i have nothing to add to it that it's covered early in the brief ok thank you thank you all right let's you know we have time for some time for a bottle of i remember correctly and i think verner's is a good case to look at closely because it's an example of how obvious the knowledge can be and you're still not guilty under a one there's a huge chunk of crack in a microwave oven in this case we have we have her there when things go on the the police showed up in the burners in found a huge chunk of microwave in the family microwave knowledge is in the under subsection one and maybe including a large scale operation in the kitchen and in this case we didn't we didn't even have proof of a large scale operation we just had it's a family residence there's trace amounts found on the table miska kark testified at least on one occasion to going over there operation was going on clearly and verner's we have a tremendous i think it was a miss i think it's one hundred grams of crack cocaine that's going along and there's evidence that there was drug dealing right there there's no question about that and that she knew about that isn't the situation you know the tenth circuit case but what i understand your argument is that you can be there as an innocent spectator and that they have to prove her purpose was a ball that's correct you don't think  thought he was a member of the conspiracy and that a person that he was with at the airport know that there was a conspiracy but did not testify that my client knew or was a member of the conspiracy and in response to the just questions about the  airport there were two cars at the airport and the car that picked up the drug courier was the car with mr byron williams car and he was in it and he was driving it cohen washington and my cl was that mr washington wanted to go there to see if you could find byron williams for some reason or another he was leaving town he wanted to say goodbye i don't know i can't remember what the testimony was but he said he was there to find byron williams not to pick up a drug courier and there was no testimony by anyone that my client knew that there was a drug courier to be picked up whether he was there to pick her up although i know that's not right the courier later testified that she thought my client was going to pick her up that someone else told her that i take it you're saying that the jury couldn't draw any inference from the well you know i think the jury can draw an inference from a multiplicity of circumstances but none of those none of those pieces of evidence tying my client to a conspiracy and he wasn't there is nothing except the hearsay to tie him to the conspiracy here say for example miss thank you saying that she thought my client was supposed to pick her up the independent evidence that my client participated in th conspiracy is what's missing and i would note that although the government argues about the testimony for kirk and stuckey that they observed my client receiving drugs for distribution is not what they testified to they testified that they saw my client mr byron williams home you know the time when he was distributing drugs they never said anything about quantity they never said anything about conversations that distribution they never said you never said anything other then my client was there