deodorants so yes in july of two thousand and sixteen she was indicted by the federal government and the government alleges that she was involved in a conspiracy with other persons  roeder who testified that miss taylor had made some purchases in two thousand and eleven the only documentary evidence connecting mr taylor to any purchases of any items in this case don't come until april of two thousand and twelve and at that time pursuant to the testimony of defendant bradley and mr schroeder and other  did the jury could take the conversation into account however in that in the context of that conversation the government informant was using terms that to prompt miss taylor into making incriminating statements in the only statements that mr taylor made that the government contended more common a thing was that back in two thousand and thirteen she had had long lines at her shop where people were were purchased seen a product that could not have had a p v p at that time in it based on the government's own evidence she also mentioned that there was a particular police officer in her neighborhood that hid singled her out because she didn't like her who was giving her a hard time about pipes with bubbles on the end it is on that jury to interpret that kind of evidence it is however the the evidence relating to scienter against mr taylor was extremely weak in this case if you if you compare it to other weeks enough i mean  consumption and they were intended to be for a bubble bath crystal bubbly both bath packets to go ahead to prove one that she intended these for human consumption in the reserves there was no evidence that mr taylor was selling these with the intent that humans consume them using one of the methods described in the analogue statute secondly the government had to prove that there was a substantially similar chemical structure between the and a controlled substance and three the government had to prove either that the substance produced similar physiological effects or that she represented to the buyers of the product that it had those similar physiological effects and there was simply no evidence that she intended these for human consumption that there or that these items had a similar physiological effect to  almost two in three in that definitional section provide that proof can be made that the defendant knew that the physiological effect was similar or that he or she represent such to the buyers that piece representing it as having no physiological effects is nowhere in the instructions and i would submit that that is what the prosecution and the government pages case on against this  that conversation jury could interpret the conversation not only that she knew she was arranging a sarah but if she knew she was dealing with a fairly controlled l r i disagree with the court my name is rob roy i represent mr and taylor he is the husband of nina taylor charlotte couple that was addressed there i plan to devote the majority and likely the believe that mr taylor or even mr and mrs taylor had any aim to see drugs distributed in the western district approach and yet and secondly i would say that the quote that you gave there about conspiracy and venue i think that dates back to high versus united states and so i think what the district court missed here was a little bit of the kind i was i was i was reading from a two thousand and five supreme court decision have international dimensions they have international tantaros as well as local tackles and they straw all over a long area a large area and while this is a nominee that is going on trials we would have individual trials here there elsewhere across the circuit it the young man when this is would be called again and again and separate trials  i think there are countervailing concerns as far as the defendant's constitutional rights to venue that no you are i would say that my clients had no way or no knowledge of anything happening and harrisonburg and if they had been part of the supplier chain but as a matter of law  required well your honor i think we're really looking at different conspiracies when you when you look at cases where you have a direct line of supply you have a straight line back and all the cases that were cited by the government  president you've got cases where there are some threats by but here you've got a completely separate conspiracy to distribute in the western district of north carolina than you have in virginia and it just opens the door for liabilit in this case then that drugs were distributed to your car in other words we're talking about there being distribution to kids here in the western district of virginia and to your client and his wife who i see is separate in the steam defendants in this case who have separate evidence against him is there  there is some evidence to suggest that at the drugs went from her to from head to dana taylor my client's husband and i would contend that there wasn't sufficient evidence to show that my client was involved in any conspiracy and i just want for your purposes to single out the evidence as it relates to it were two there seems to me in the record to be a distinct difference between the amount of evidence with respect to distribution as to  who owned the shop and were tailor the evidence would indicate if i'm incorrect please correct me that he attended the distribution that happened in burlington with is wife part two that there is no evidence that schroeder or anyone else distributed your taylor is there that's correct your honor all right thank you  drugs but the other three counts mr bradley was charged off for and that's a little bit different than the other two palettes before you for circuit case law including bo furtherance of that conspiracy must be committed by a member of the conspiracy the government is exactly correct when it says it did not have to prove any overt act for the conspiracy but it is using rely on an overt act to show venue and the stretch for the government is that it's asking the court to find that the act of mr caisson or who is not alleged to be not shown to be a member of the other conspiracies somehow his act is imputed to another conspiracy and the government's not able to show any authority for that he got a name conspirator in count one of the conspiracy count that's correct were highlighting the fact that this is not where we're from says not where we live this is not where we go it business is just for the sake of preserving the record this was brought up very early in the case and mr bradley fil judge the trial judge it has to be submitted to the jury it has to be submitted to the jury this is not an issue for the court i believe the answer is no with respect to  edwards and the government's response to that and its brief is we're relying on case except he's not not not just not charged but the proof doesn't even begin to show it's not even alleged that somehow he's involved with importing from china with international money laundering or count three and without any evidence that mr cation has anything to do with those conspiracies the government cannot rely on any act and call it an overt act it can't  your case or is not a member of those conspiracies the question before the court is is the act of a non member of a conspiracy i handed you a point on count two it's not alleged in count it they're not real good morning to you had some from the united states i'd like to pick up with the venue argument and in the government's view the record is not entirely clear whether these issues were preserved it is clear that to us anyway that written motions were filed early in the trial alleging venue bile defendants was a pretrial conference where the district court made that clear mr bradley's particular motion did reference each count in the indictment when he referred to that in his st written motion and then later i believe his post trial motion did also at least in plates refer to all of the answers that he was charged with however nobody in the district court that i saw was making any particular argument regarding anything but count one in the conspiracy and that's why to me it's a little bit unclear as to whether that was preserved also watching times in your everybody do scoll the counts two and four in addition to count one but not count three the promotion of money laundering he's challenged the importation conspiracy and the international money laundering conspiracy but  particularly laid out in one of the headings but and i think the argument is similar at least on many of the counts if not identical but i know them judge moon one talked about he left out one of the cou four well i wondered even because of the nature of the written pleadings and some of the lack of specificity i actually wondered not having them there myself whether the district court's opinion even intended to address all of the counts money laundering counts and everything my sense of it is in when he talked about the conspiracy to overlay that he was talking about conspiracies he may have different objects he made but that they involve the same actors and they have all of many of the same mechanisms i mean the money laundering was a separate conspiracy perhaps but he wasn't getting involved different actors and the money laundering was trials because it's conspiracies can have different objects and you can hear different accounts with conspiracies with different objects but if they involve the those the same actors and much of the same conspiracy we have of course spent a fair amount of time talking about mr castner and his connection to the conspiracy here in the western district of virginia but regarding the m four taishan conspiracy count only that if from our perspective the oral argument i did find one other connection to the western district of virginia there is a telephone call between mr schroeder and an individual named randy lee cook that was introduced as a government exhibit and was focused on that in our view the correctness of the district court's opinion that was issued in this case and we did not argue that it was not preserved for the reasons that i was setting out earlier that that it appeared that mr bradley had at least at a court that there was insufficient venue for the conspiracy there were no arguments presented that i saw you know i didn't struction and i'm sorry i didn't recall that i heard the discussion about play we read one here and now  circumstances in which pain happy presented to i think and in this case yes if if the jury might just time that and i don't require an interest in your answer when it's raised as a legal matter and the court found that there was sufficient venue the defendants ma alleged conspiracy if an overt act occurred in western district virginia and it was found with a jury there would be then you the problem i have is that question was never presented to the jury and how do we know e as i understand it as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt ok so it's it's a little bit different in those circumstances now was there ever any dispute that was raised before job that brought me into question in any way in the sense that i challenge to the fact to arguing that it didn't happen or i don't think so and i was that i mean we have seen as it was it brought into a dispute independent say we don't think that there is a venue problem here because mr castner was not engaged in any sales they were in other words you have to explain to the district as one of those classic elements of the conspiracy it is different in ca from the classic questions of guilt and else so the question i have is when it is brought before the district if the defendants wanted to preserve the issue i think the answer would be yes they offered that is struction i believe the argument that was primarily about whether the defendants were part of the conspiracy with mr castor and as the dismiss relative to venue that there was no need to be submitted to the jury for its determination is that the position that the government is taking in other words the question has been asked about ordinarily and and and judge wilkinson asked earlier whether or not what are the circumstances when it does not have to be presented to the jury so what i want to know from you is is it the  upon yes and especially where there was no challenge again to the primary piece of evidence that the government relied on for venue  also where and light of the evidence here i think working at it from this perspective there is no concern and at least from the comforts perspective that this conspiracy did absolutely touch the western district of virginia that the drawings were distributed here the drugs that were imported from china were distributed here by the conspirators that would be as to count one and as to count two with the drugs that were imported from the jury didn't find it and is there a precedent that you want to cite to us for the proposition that they did not under the circumstances presented here have to be submitted to the which the burden of proof rests with the government but unlike other facts in the governor's case it may be proven by the mere preponderance of the age and circumstantial evidence can be sufficient so it's just a question of fact that's that's what judge did it if they did it if it's an error here it has to be harmless error for the government to sustain its position if it was preserved or ordinarily would be submitted to the jury but the question is when you submit something to the jurors because they have some role to perform and this is understanding from the passage that my friend judge king read this is subject to our less aero analysis and the question i have is yeah if there's some question if they have said wait a minute mr caster is not involved in these sales you've got it wrong there's no talent of western district of virginia and mr castner's is is nothing to do with say and do overs are never as good as the as the original trial itself and not of this has any relationship to guilt or innocence and none of it has any real dispute as far as i can see about the fact that mr kushner was operating out of harrisonburg virginia harrisonburg virginia is part of the western district of virginia he's shipping up  to mr schroeder he's distributing the the analogs in his locale and that this is a this has been a fair trial and to require the district judge and the witnesses and everybody to go through it all again seems to me wrong honor out i would also like to add to that i do think it's a significant piece of evidence since we have focused so much on mr castro that there was another piece of evidence that was uncontested and was i don't think ever brought have been any and any discussion of anything and that is this phone call between mr schroeder and randy cook in september of two thousand and fourteen mr cook is in dayton virginia in the western district mr cook called mr schroeder and they had a discussion about the fact that mr cook had already sent mr shier son finds that were purportedly for drugs that mr schroeder is talking to mr cook and asking mr cook if mr cook wants mr schroeder to send him his money back or whether cook wants to hang on for a while while schroeder sees if he can get the things that are coming into the states i'm just paraphrasing some things from that conversation so we would suggest that in addition to mr castner your honor and that in the category of uncontested facts were but this is the point when you bring about this point on contested facts in the different relationships i don't understand i don't understand anything that i have said to be contrary to what that that would be a clear i would never say never an issue be submitted to a jury but there have to be some circumstances which some notion of practicality and the resource expenditure involved in  e re trial and the connection clearly over the poor prong of this conspiracy to the western district of virginia has to be some practicality involved here somewhere and that can be done with out impairing the principle and infringing upon the principle with which i wholly agree that venue if there's any question about it or to be submitted to the jury i would not draw back on that on that basic principle but under the facts of this case as the passage from that judge king read from joe shared earlier opinion there can be circumstances in which yes it's harmless the criminal justice system is never wholly three from some little smidgen of practical assessment the government certainly grace with everything your honor his just i didn't think you would take  it i thought i would briefly address the arguments regarding mr ever taylor really just wanted to fly for the court that evidence was clear that he was present in two thousand and thirteen when the law enforcement agents executed a raid on taylor's part of the conversation that the informant said that he needed the two hundred packs for gettysburg by way to mr taylor repeated the number two hundred and then at some point in that conversation said he would he would talk to his wife  further about that but i think they were both together in the process of coming down to meet the informant and saying telephone in burlington so we're on the set at the same time a teletype not a separate telephone call i think that was together and then of course we would emphasize mr taylor statements that were made after the fact where he said that they were there to sell jewelry cases and that was what they were  negotiating and this judgment and probably helped the jury it was absolutely entitled that that was not true and did not comport with the facts and common sense that was after arrest that he made that statement yes during this also indicated to me to him that bikers really like this he indicated he would repeat that to her what other evidence is there regarding anything being distributed to it or his purchase a patient in the conspiracy i think our evidence your honor with mr taylor which is why the court found that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction as mr taylor we're going out logs our evidence really  his participation and the negotiation for that matter the arrangements for that meeting with the informant has the fact that he heard the number and later in conjunction with his statement to the officer after his arrest which again in the government's view was not a truthful statement and i think judgment correctly found that a jury was absolutely entitled on this well that it was not truthful and to ensure that we don't speak too broadly he was not involved in the when the store was raided when they found almost three hundred thousand dollars in cash in the safe where crystal bubbly who could packets were taken by law enforcement officers and that right and then where he and his wife were both arrested after that even though the charges were dropped i think that is also part of the context for evaluating further evidence that developed in two thousand and fifteen i think it's important to context but i've given in i know that the government relied on that in the briefing government's position or against it in as much as the charges were dismissed but i do understand that the government relied on that and thank you and the last point i wanted to make sponsor to my colleagues argument really is just to make sure regarding a report in the record i think the court had mentioned something about the court's instruction on the two prongs of mcfadden knowledge and unless i'm mistaken instruction number thirty eight reflects that the court actually eliminated from the instruction the nd method of proof regarding identity where the government would be permitted to prove knowledge by showing that a defendant knew was dealing with some controlled substance that is treated as such by the analog that were guard lists of whether they knew the identity and i believe that was discussed at the charging conference in this case in that court so based on th contain any of the substances for which miss taylor was charged in this case and fish forty two when she went to steve's leather and in the guy's name was steven that's who she knew him as he was a governor former government informant she said that she was in the law selling crystal lovely was in the law that was that was her laypersons way of describing how the two thousand and thirteen dismissal of the charges came out she believed that what she was doing was legal in the reason she believed that is because modern day prophets this business situated in illinois they call her out of the blue so we have something that people want to buy she's a storekeeper she wants to sell things that people bought they told her it was legal they told her they met with an attorney illinois who went through the legalities of it in establish that it was legal for them they had business cards that they sent the stuff to or in the regular mail it came with normal packing there was nothing about this enterprise that indicated to her vision i mean those are all good argument w of determining that this behavior was illegal long and clutter mention that a reasonable person could could look at chemical structure charts to determine whether the item they're selling is a leader not modern day profits mr schroeder from illinois provided chemical charts laboratory studies for miss taylor to view and she did and she was convinced based on this presentation her that what she was doing was legal very briefly on the venue matter all of the affirmative acts that miss taylor was alleged to have undertaken in this case occurred in north carolina even if you conspired with the guy in harrisonburg which you did in an overt act you can be trial the argument that was made was that she was selling these packets in charlotte north carolina and somehow they were making their way into the record show anywhere while they side of the government decided to get this and i would say that if to preserve what is an issue and that the jury instructions when the indictment is read and it says you can find conspiracy took place in the western district or elsewhere and everybody treat it as one conspiracy to i mean the page fifteen we asked the court to review all three of the the government's correct when it comes to the instructions that an instruction thirty four dollars appears judgment going with the government's evidence goes with mcfadden's st way to prove knowledge and that's the th element instruction thirty four joined appendix three thousand one hundred and forty five saying that the defendant has to know that this is a construct controlled substance analogue the jury instruction error were alleging is an instruction for me the judgment undoes all that by instructing the jury that but the defendants do not have to know what they're doing is it legal and we some outside of the