whether the evidence was sufficient to show that under the shotgun was possessed by my client in furtherance of a drug conspiracy i believe the government only proves satisfactorily that the gun could have possibly been used to further the drug conspiracy but they fell far short of establishing of it is true that there's at least one case from from this district i think it's the kraus case which which affirmed a conviction where there was no evidence that the that the weapons the bolt i loaded weapons were actually know why isn't the proximity of the weapon plus the nature of the drug conspiracy such that he has it in furtherance because it well over an above the fact that there was no mission for the gun over and above that there was just no it's just not even a scintilla of evidence that that that this gun who and who knows how long it was there he could have been put through been placed there hours or the day time all during the course of the conspiracy from all surveillance testimony that we think that that's a record this disclosure there was never any suggestion that any time my client was ar time right well and it's not only evidence of drug dealing and maybe another thought that occurred to me as i was released over the other day that another factor is perhaps one of those late night visitors gave my client the shotgun but it's difficult for me to conjure up a a more extreme example of where a gun is just possessed and has nothing whatever to do with the drug trafficking or no one ever saw gun no one ever saw something that looked like a gun though no one heard a gun being ratcheted late at night when he had his visitors it's just sheer speculation my client was a drug user there's no question about that he was tried know buy ammunition but once they once the jury heard this expert testimony they were started given there was like the architect the way that they could convict the client the definitively didn't like because he was a bad person who was mean please the court andrea resi for the united states government can see its the case presented a trial issue and it certainly was not an overwhelming case for the government but the government presented the evidence to the case in which somebody could possess a gun and not have been for them it's for directions they were part of the directions i think the evidence here was that the shotgun was found in the front bedroom of the motel which was defendant's living area and it was found next to the key elements for destruct conspiracy which were all of the prescription drugs doc yes but no as i understand and you can correct me if i'm wrong those were being used not in that place in other words they were prescriptions that would be used to go somewhere else and get the drugs and go somewhere else and sell the drugs but there's no connection between the fact that he had those prescription documents that anything directly  prescriptions are going to be used to go somewhere else to get the drugs and then somewhere else to sell that is correct the prescriptions were taken to the r x pharmacy to do as much as you without something going on in that place well in addition to those prescription drugs and the authorization forms there were also price lists notes handwritten notes and i defend he was part of the conspiracy and he would have thought he was doing a business but he wasn't doing that they are to any or there's no evidence he was doing it there well i think the jury could have did that based upon these priceless he was selling out of the that the fact that you have visitors is somehow an inference that you're selling drugs when you have no agent no witness no testimony on that topic and that's a pretty inference it is i think by mean we know he's a drug dealer that gets convicted the question is is he going to get this different sentence because he used had a firearm in furtherance and the difficulty i think is figuring out what's the difference between  possession because in other words if you are a drug dealer and you have a gun at your house under your theory it would be hard pressed to say that every drug dealer who had a gun at his house isn't in furtherance of conspiracy well i think that the difference is if you look at what defendant's intent was here the this court has said that in determining whether there's an access or whether something is in  include his intent was to protect the money that he had when he was arrested he had two thousand dollars on him living in the motel this this is a man who had no employment paid for his motel room in cash and wanted to protect that money is gun promoted or facilitated the drug trafficking conspiracy it was linked to the conspiracy count and the government argued that it did because this gun was easily accessible to defendant defendant had a motivation he needed security to protect his cash only business as well as the drug paraphernalia here and with that comes back to my first question is can you think of any instance where if you are a drug dealer and you're in a drug conspiracy and you have a gun at your house that you wouldn't also be convicted of this further as well i think an instance would be for example and there's actually a case from another circuit where a drug dealer had a handgun in close proximity to the drugs and in the up stairs bedroom of his home had a shotgun and in that case i think that the argument is definitely stronger that the shotgun is not connected to the drugs here defendant shotgun was a sawed off shotgun that had no sporting purpose which i think it's different than perhaps a gun that's it and they sawed off shotgun was in the same room with everything related to the drug conspiracy the expert expert baumgartner stated that while it had no ammunition it could still be used for intimidation although he did concede that under those circumstances it really could not be used for protection is the front room i mean it was put in the bathroom which the kid also was presumably has access to and then he's going to get into some kind of thing with joe welfare people so it's not a situation where he has a mansion and he can put one gun upstairs and one over here there is no other place for him if he decides to have a gun for whatever purpose so can you draw any lessons from the fact that he didn't have the gun somewhere else well i think yes you said there it was it's right i mean it's the way that much helen was set up there was sort of a living room area a front bedroom in the rear bedroom that belonged to the child and the gun was where he kept all of the drug documents not in the living list that he had his handwritten notes that said sell this for this and now he kept on hand to sell drugs that he needed if they were to know how much he was selling these drugs for and nothing else there was no we're reach that issue and we need to make that decision then we would probably send a letter to you so that you could consult with your plan that we should thank you thank you thank you both counsel for your argument this morning the case of united states versus recess is needed the next case for argument united states versus b