south dakota there was a common objective among participants basic methodology was the same various individual contect other individual rights only if you're just fed up in a range well of recent methamphetamine crisis would be a negotiate possibly at double jeopardy violation when he pleaded guilty st in the iowa case isn't a double jeopardy violation it to the extent one exists in the south dakota  of what i'm asking the court to do to address the jeopardy issued in terms of whether it was way based on the order whether it was waived or not the order states that should be addressed prior to trial or to any  to mental double jeopardy concerns although the history of the double jeopardy clause recognizes that a single agreement to commit an offense does not become several conspiracies because it continues over a period of time that standard and that and that is where we begin our air each erminie that crowell had waived the double jeopardy issue and should have looked at both the face of the indictment in the factual record outside of the original record existing at the time court determined that the government was part by double jeopardy of charging crowell's count one of this indictment as the district court had before it sufficient record in which to decide that alternatively t like to reserve the rest of my time  january of two thousand and eighteen the iowa indictment came in march of two thousand and eighteen in november of two thousand and eighteen or nineteen the district court in iowa denied the defendant's st motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy grounds stating that jeopardy had not attached yet and that's on the iowa case was set for trial ahead of the south dakota case and the the court took the position in that order that whatever double jeopardy issues that may come up would be an issue for south dakota at that time after iowa had concluded its truck and then shortly after that the carrillo pled guilty in iowa to both counts on november th two thousand and eighteen and then the next month on december th two thousand and eighteen carrillo pled guilty in the district of south dakota and then on march th of twenty one thousand dollars carrillo was sentenced in the district of south dakota and the defense carrillo in iowa filed another motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy grounds which the court addressed on may st two thousand and nineteen and denied the nd motion to dismiss based on the fact that carrillo had waived his double jeopardy claim by pleading guilty in the south case st and so it appears to me based on that opinion that there can't be a double jeopardy issue because eat the eye at jeopardy have not yet attacked in the south dakota case yet what's the government's position on that i'm just trying to figure out if  great constitutional issue we have to address here your honor certainly we believe the district court was correct in denying the st motion to dismiss saying that there was no double jeopardy issue because jeopardy had not attached that would be the government's position as to that and then certainly as far as what the what the district court looked at when the district court looked at the when the nd motion to dismiss was raised and as mr munley has talked about wanting an evidentiary hearing there is no need to reach those issues either because the south dakota district court disclosed at least partially the offense conduct from the pre sentence investigation report for the judge to consider and based on that the face of  i would also just respond to just briefly just to some of the some of the differences in the way that my friend mr manley and i look at the at the facts of the two conspiracies on the on the most significant issues for the conspiracies there are very different yes they both have the same objective of distributing methamphetamine but the people are different in one conspiracy the carrillo conspiracy in iowa there are only two people in south dakota there's five people d plus carrillo the sources of supply for the methamphetamine or course different kansas city being the source of supply in the iowa case and minnesota minneapolis minnesota being the source of supply for the south dakota conspiracy  time frame although in looking at the indictments in the two cases the south dakota case would appear to overlap in time because it goes from an unknown date through november th two thousand and seventeen in the  and the in the indictment in the i would case is limited to august th two thousand and seventeen through august th two thousand and seventeen so although there is potentially some overlap the p s on from south dakota clears up any issue with that because the p s i specifically says that carrillo as conduct was limited to the transaction that it brokered on july th and th of two thousand and seventeen which is of course outside of the iowa timeframe for that conspiracy what about the fact that this is the same in both cases do i understand that this t i was working with the task force that a south dakota where both of those control lines of control contacts and transactions yes ron i the the confidential source was the same in both conspiracies and was utilized by the same investigators in those cases but it but of course the c s was not charged in either of those cases which means he's not a coconspirator as the government understands the current state of the law so based on that there wouldn't be enough overlap in the conspiracies to implicate  because this person that identified through the course of the case or was it always that just an initials they had never been identified in the case your honor and if any did the defendant try to find did include as we went to trial the information something that was that was provided that included the information about the confidential source but i don't believe that information was put into the record in this case so i just want to take to clarify that point but certainly the the the government's position is that the use of the same confidential source to prove these for these things for these conspiracies does not make them not facially distinct and the reason is that you have this whole organization that is moving somewhere between eighteen to twenty seven kilograms and mr carrillo played a small part in that by brokering this one transaction but entirely separate from that is this other source of supply coming out of kansas city that carrillo involved himself and not with any of those other people the five other coconspirators he was with in south dakota but you have this much more limited arrangement where the where he gets in contact with mr otero and when you look at of course the locations of where these conspiracies took place and the fact that they didn't overlap in time the fact that the government's admits that the fact that there was a confidential source utilized in both cases is not dispositive on the issue of their being facially distinct offenses that the defendant it was a forty five month variance below the guideline range both counts were to run concurrent for one hundred and ninety months and it was also concurrent to the fifty one month sentence in south dakota and for all those reasons as well as  he got a lower sentence because it was a lower amount so he had a lower base offense level because it was i believe nine hundred and ninety one grams of methamphetamine in south dakota versus the seven thousand nine hundred grams in iowa and you a issue as to whether or not mr crowell actually waive this claim and then the additional information as to what he's allowed to prove at the hearing the record i'm asking the court to reverse the district court's finding the record is clear i think that girl's double jeopardy challenge is valid  information that i just relayed to the court in terms of the details of this are were all part of this record before the trial but it was