for the related case of united states versus marin pronounced that right through a written thank you first i'd like to object to counsel for mr bush's continual statements that this was an attempted drug transaction by mr murray and obviously we've contended many times that there was no attempt in this didn't go as far as to be an attempt and in fact the government dismissed the charge of attempted purchase of drugs in this case be that as of may and obviously we  were severed in our cases were separated so counsel really doesn't know what are the kinds of i don't think at the time our appeal involves the denial of two motions we made in the trial court the first a motion to dismiss on the grounds of outrageous governmental this conduct and i would like to point out to the court that this is not a case where we just have an i'm savoring character who helped the government start out crime this is a case where obviously the character not only the immigration laws by being here illegally but by committing other crimes including drug smuggling violating getting duis and and all that time getting special privileges for that in fact he testified at a hearing in one thousand nine hundred nine that he knew that he violated the law the government would take care of him he had to get out of jail free card so this is a person who continually vitally the law with the government's assent and the government's help this is not only with drugs in the cell phone he initially lied to them about why he had the drugs but after taking a polygraph examination admitted that he had the drugs for his own use that he was using drugs with the informant he was working in that case which was a separate case from this one and perhaps was selling drugs at that time so not only does the informant use drugs but the government has direct knowledge of that and  get to be involved in selling drugs so he can make money and in fact that's exactly what happened in this case that we proved at the at the evidence or here he met my client at a bar they begin talking about party eventually it led to the use of drugs together and eventually it led to these negotiations but standard of review is this court apply to the failure of the district court to and that gets me to the point of the the evidence three issue that was involved here i think it's pretty clear from the record that the district court judge at the first hearing indicated that our facts were in contest that we presented  affidavit from mr moran about these the incidents that happened up to the drug sale we submitted documented evidence about informants past the government instead of submitting a declaration for mr rodriguez the informant in this case merely submitted an affidavit by the police officer that i talked to the informant and he told me that the cocaine related incidents that happened i assume by that the government means that he didn't use cocaine with mr moran but everything else happened and the court indicated that making its ruling that it assumed that the the declaration the evidence presented by mr brown this motion was uncontested by the government after the second hearing after the government  i just found out about that case and in that case they didn't grant the motion because they didn't feel that the activity not case was directly attributable to the government in this case clearly the government had been using this informant for sixteen years have direct knowledge of how he was operating his modus operandi of drumming up business i was using with suspects and in this particular case the evidence is consistent with my final argument that they they sought to sanitize this informant knowing all that because if you have a really bad informant even if he's good at what he's doing it getting people to sell or talk about drugs with him the problem is you have to go to trial and then that informant going to have to testify and the defense is going to destroy this particular informant there's more evidence in this case than i've ever seen so i don't think the government ever wanted to have an informant in front of the jury or to file an affidavit where he would be challenged to his credibility and what happened here is for the government testify without being impeached by the defense it seems to me that conduct is directly attributable to the government establishes that they have knowledge of this informant is not someone that you could use and they took steps to hide that information for months and in fact hid that information even when we made the motion filed the affidavit told them what our fast were did provide the cooperate information to later about the fact that he had actually stayed in the hotel we said where mr murray met him at government expense at the time  so the fact that he did have a female with him when the steamer and said that he had a female with him during this meeting which was never brought up before so to me this is shocking me finish yes you can get a gun she'd from the clerk after your arguments over write up the name and number of the case and give a copy to opposing counsel i will thank you thank you you have about two minutes for rebuttal thank you you i guess it goes without saying the government's position is pretty much diametrically opposed to everything mr brainwash that there are certain certain things well agree on but i think from the get go we disagree one of the real the purpose of the motion i don't find and then he denies the outrageous governmental conduct motion in other words the district court didn't make a factual finding  mr rainwater mr moran let's even assume every single thing you say is true i'm not finding that this is outrageous conduct the excerpt of record again when the the case came up again when the motion was raised again the district court said in my prior ruling i did make certain assumptions as far as mr marine's version the facts rest what happened here and i want to get off this to the point of that find that there's outrageous governmental conduct that justifies the dismissal this case was this individual informant as has been alleged in the country illegally and the record doesn't reflect that i don't have personal knowledge of it i would assume not i would assume that he's got some kind of these or that allows him to be here because he's a government informant what counsel did was take judge walker's findings and apply them to the case that bar the worst everything informant has the absolutely same performance he feels here now whether he's here in the country legally or illegally i don't have personal knowledge the record does and doesn't reflect i would in the chance no i'm just talking about the point the point i'm making let me finish in any part of the disclosure to the defense in this case to the government reveal anything about his rodriguez the name bre to the defense so it touched on its alien edge and the point i was trying to make and i was wandering through the point was that if the man is working with a federal agency my experience is that the federal agencies will not have informants that are in the country illegally all the federal informants are in the country legally so that's helped me this man was working for federal agencies in san diego and with the in fresno that's held me face to my experience that he's in the country illegally is that in the record now but that is my understanding of it what happened in this case the next thing the obviously the pope point of was your finding or not by the district court is the standard or view review for this court the next point that mr rainwater made is that mr rodriguez fishes in the bars and did all these things that he's  hotel and then in that constitutive outrageous government conduct well what happened in this case and it's detectives non si honest declaration is in and the excerpt of record was put in in opposition to there and that's not a car that's mr that's the place with the bus depot with cetera et cetera and the auto detailing that mr moran ran and he found mr moran and mr moran was willing to do a saying this and doing that came up and approached mr moran about a drug deal the allegations that mr rodriguez the informant did these things did the actions in the radisson and all those things came up after the fact so that's one of the factual this disputes that we've always had and that's a district court found unnecessary  resolve i've gone through in the brief a lot of the cases on outrageous government conduct and i submit to the court that far more egregious conduct has been found not to relationship with the defendant she uses drugs with the defend it they all say that's fine that's not what happened in this case in this case or recorded telephone calls between the informant and the district court had the opportunity to listen to them the district court did listen and then mr moran was eager to attend kilogram cocaine transaction the government's theory is always been it's been liar on liar the informant was felon in possession of a firearm there is no way in the world mr rodriguez the informant had anything to do with mr moran having that firearm other than mr  he was doing something with a car that is owned by third person and it was going to go off somewhere and so he was just simply being inconsistent and storing the gun and then he was going to throw away the district court judge who was evaluating that testimony his usual remedy for entrapment and outrageous government conduct when the government causes the crime to occur or the government's contention in this case is no matter what you say about the informant modern yes i just like to point out a couple of things first of all mr rooney read to the court the judge's findings but he didn't read the whole paragraph and what happened was when we we started the hearing we had an argument over whether there was an evidentiary hearing should be necessary or not and i pointed out on this the court was going to accept our facts we should have mr rodriguez testimony and the first part of the court's statement that mr rooney read was the reasons i didn't think we needed evident hearing is those issues are directly in front of me and the court in front of the court without any further evidence and then he goes on to say i'm going to dispute assume istomin statements undisputed so i don't think i think the c otherwise he's the legal finally i'd like to address mr rooney's argument is that this was a robbery and i've said this several times before that's a silly conclusion if you're going to do a robbery as mr rooney violated the indictment must be dismissed so i don't think it matters what the particular charge was here thank you ok me think what's right for their argument against just argue will be so that it produces minimal proceed to the next case which is from hawaii