lights or the yellow gives you two minutes from when the red light comes on we ask you to conclude as quickly as you can unless you're entering the question well and including if you're answering a question from the court and we also appreciate record case most of whom were not related to him the offenses obviously are serious but the fact that in a sense a series should not be an invitation to gather says that the allegations in the indictment must be taken as true because the allegations in the indictment alleged a single conspiracy that deprived my client's attorney trial attorney of the ability to  move for a severance until the evidence had come in and now he did preserve there i disagree with the government's brief where the government assumes that no error was preserved in this case he he raised the that it is it deprives a litigant deprives a criminal defendant of the right to a fair trial if you lump that criminal defendant in on monts with several other defendants when the record shows that instead of one conspiracy there actually are multiple conspiracies and that's what the record showed in this clip which of these multiple conspiracies with your client not involv is the evidence with respect to the mr goes on i actually testify that his testimony primarily related to his computer where he kept copious records of the money  organization right i'm sorry there's there's at least three different money laundering organizations implicated in the in the conspiracy you mean engine to one of them he's at the center of right the organization i've actually we think there there may have been several of these money laundering organizations there certainly were but there was least one in which he was in the middle right in the problem with the case is that evidence came in that that involve money money were emitters that he didn't necessarily do business with there was no evidence he did business with those and i think the problem  i'm sorry i say i didn't some of his relatives do business with those other emitters well they're there i think there is evidence that all three of the large organisations did business with are out i wouldn't have a big disagreement with that what i do disagree with is the fact that some of these organizations did business with the same money remainders and maids necessarily they're related i don't think you can come to that conclusion based on the evidence  the evidence shows that all of these organizations were trying to get cash transmitted to mexico and were just going to the handful of businesses that they could find money with measures that they could find that would allow them to do that that doesn't necessarily mean that they had some agreement that those were the remittances that they were going to use and and if you look at the investigators testimony they investigators talk about this and i forget the name of the town in that state in mexico where they said ninety nine percent of the methamphetamine was in the world was manufactured but that that's a town of about ninety nine thousand people and they said there were multiple organizations that were unrelated that did that brought methamphetamine out of that town in mexico so there was there was plenty of evidence that these who at one time did were for my clients organization but had moved to a different organization by the time the text messages were s the evidence cited by the government is that this text text message was a initiated bot andr damien rodrigue government's major witnesses and soon lane in fairness was a member of my client's organization but she also denied denied participation in either of the other two organizations alaska denied knowing a lot of the people in my client's organization and the problem with this test the problem with this text message exchanges doesn't really tell you much doesn't tell you whose money it was and for all we know from the context of the text messages the reason rodriguez may have wanted it back was to prevent a turf war between two competing organizations and you can see that being risky to both but even if you're right that there are multiple conspiracies in your client wasn't implicated in some of them but was unequivocally implicated in one of them this court is bound by our decision in falkner which you  and you have other arguments about the jury instructions but that doesn't affect the way we review your variance argument on appeal because on the only question is is are reversible error with respect to the variance between indictment i'm sorry but yes the indictment of one conspiracy in the proof of multiple and faulkner pretty specifically says there's evidence that you're implicated in war and you seem to agree with us that he's implicated in one and isn't at the end of that argument which move on to something i know the reason i think it's not your honor is because i think the facts of salt are so distinguishable you have to take the court's ruling in the context of those facts what my reading of the fokker case is that what this court was signing is as in this case where where you've got where you've got really what amounts to our position is three chain conspiracies there are links in the china that don't necessarily war with the other links in the chain and don't have any knowledge of what the links in the chain  was that there were multiple conspiracies in this case you've got essentially the sign saying you've got the money remainders being found not guilty of the drug trafficking conspiracy but guilty of the money laundering conspiracy and i think f er would have the discussion of fokker has some merit there with respect to my klein argument is different argument is that we were involved in these other organizations and there was a substantial amount of evidence about the other organizations offered not the least of which was mr lozano's computer records that that really had absolutely nothing to do well let me ask you a question  let's assume there was an error how can you prove that there was substantial prejudiced here client because he seems to have been as close to a kingpin of all this is as there was well i think you've got you've really got the fact that if there were a separate trial against a defendant that defendant modder might even probably be found guilty is not really the quo and what you've got to look at is is the totality of circumstances and if if it's clear from the totality of the circumstances the it was not a fair trial then you have to reverse just on the basis of keeping keeping the system intact what we say in behalf of mystery this is tried it is there's all the sun related evidence that i've already talked about there was hearsay evidence that came in most of which involved the lynsey of organizations had nothing to do with the month klein he was tried in the eastern district of texas there was there was no evidence at all that any over act took place in the eastern district or any really act act at all took place in the eastern but again did you move to change front did the council talk on some move to change venue well i think once again your honor the problem with that is how how can he do that when the government alleges a single conspiracy and some of the other conspirators conspirators clearly did business in the eastern district of texas just because m main argument that we have because i think in the cases that were cited by both sides that were using his authority to try to go in and faces is is very important number one the government must prove that she was a knowing participant in an underlying and by being acquitted of the drug conspiracy our position is how can she be hell to those standards that were read of the assesses troy here where they talk about specifically od'ing the underlying activity the underlying activity was the drug conspiracy or the drug proceeds coming in so they have to show that she on cheap promoted it she knowingly toji agreed to enter into this conspiracy to do so the conflict that we have is that this court hearing the same evidence said she was not guilty of participating in the drug conspiracy government in the deliberate ignorance well delivered inger it was available to both charges so our position is the jury which i hope we give deference to is saying she did not a or a bat in any so is it your position that you can never the government can never prevail in a case involving money laundering drug money unless they also program on the current conspiracy charge i think my position on that issue that's a very good question had she only been tried for a drug for the money laundering and there was no trial going on at the same time for the drug conspiracy then there could be evidence that comes in like in you know substantial ties to the drug organization substantial involvement in the drug organization there's none of that here by the jury here finding that she is not guilty and i think this is one of those little isolated type cases where the government chose to indict or a both off and says and there's that inherent conflict based you still have to get there in that's i think is the conflict that we have by jury saying she's not guilty of the substance of act which in order to find her guilty of money laundering they must prove that she entered it knowingly and intentionally to promote that underlying  think if the government had evidence that she was intricately tied in she knew the organization like intervene your case you know say cervinia those brothers are the big cartel members here she's just an owner of a sho be she turns up the security cameras she helps him come up with fake names he structured multiple tens of thousands of dollars in transactions and one thousand dollar increments break i mean she had she literally sending with different names with some with one person sitting in front of her changing the names before they remit the money so it's not like she's just operating the shop right by us which easter turn up the security cameras i think we have to look at it from this perspective from a if what we're saying is she did all these things and she was convicted of the drug conspiracy because those things right then and there would lead one to believe if true and the jury if the jury believed those facts to be true by virtue of them finding her not guilty my position is the jury saying that is not true they did not believe those witnesses to two to what element of the crime are you directing this argument one of the words this was a but she has to know that there is a conspiracy to be part of so i guess it's both issues she cheese if she doesn't if she's not guilty of the drug conspiracy how can she knowingly do involve wait a minute because according to when the indictment charges that concealment money laundering the government must prove the defending conspired to conduct a financial transaction with proceeds of a specified illegal activity with knowledge the transaction was designed to conceal or disguise the source of the proceeds ok so a fight so what you're arguing is she didn't know but all of these contortions she was  going through had to do with proceeds of an illegal activity is that what you're saying saying the government didn't prove it and the jury didn't buy well excuse me but also you had to do was they didn't have to prove that she engaged in the drug dealing herself it's just that she engaged in the money laundering of the proceeds of the illegal and she had certificates right big that she had been trained to identify money laundering try to i respectfully disagree with a conclusion i think in some of the holdings and they talk about needing a little bit more being tied into the organization understanding how the organization is run you have a little old lady who is owner of the little shop and yes her son of security cameras helping out with the just under the number that you have to report on and get i think it's because he wanted to try the case in german and not in doubt if if you look at the venue in this case please consider that when you do that and  his organization conspiring with each one of them separately i'm not sure i can see why you joined him and all of them you know proving the meth conspiracy on one side and all the  that kind of pattern is enough to make this one conspiracy as opposed to now so you really pressed him pretty pretty heavily on the harmlessness of the wood are you able to talk i have stats not sever and that's important he never asked for multiple conspiracy instruction either before or during the trial he did not he did not comply with the  you know what i think you're saying is yes the government charged multiple conspiracies by the harry charted them out for the jury and they explained them and therefore it's not a problem  no herrera i understand that she put on no evidence at all but the cancer affected her mind like her ability to form intent but i also understood the argument to be that she's just not around she's busy getting chemo she's getting radiation she's having to sit home so that she doesn't get exposed to you know a cold can make you very ill if you're you know in chemotherapy cetera et cetera why would that not be relevant like i'm not around to be able to figure out what's going on because why is that not relevant she did testify and i believe she said something like six times i wasn't there i was  and it was my daughter but she couldn't explain why i mean that sounds kind of like you like oh i won there yeah sure you weren't but if you said i won there because i was getting chemotherapy because my doctor made me stay home because i couldn't be exposed to the ordinary colds and flus and whatnot that would give it a little more heft i mean it would give some support to it why is that not relevant to that point  judgments i am in this on this question doesn't he offer her trial counsel be ability to renew this because there was a motion on the cancer testimony which he says and so he takes the  documents in camera looks at them says they seem to go to sympathy not availability or we're being at the at the money wanted to sell it at the time of the money laundering but says you can renew it when she comes to testify if if this is going to be the testimony and they colloquy right before she comes to testify after the judge has ruled on the motion in limine and he says he gives the defense lawyer another opportunity to say well no actually we'd like to use the cancer evidence but in a different way and it just doesn't happen her he said cancel so i'm not going to touch that sort of you know the way he said that is because he's afraid of violating the motion in limine and being held in contempt is clear because he says i'm terrified out on how i'm going to avoid this something and then the judge lets him make an offer proof and you don't typically in let's a lawyer make an offer of proof when you don't think they've asked for it so i don't understand why at the end were having an offer proof if in of appeals judge me you may not this may have been his first big draw or whatnot but he didn't just fall off a truck there and so he understands the concept of in order for there to be an offer of proof there had to have been a request for something that was do not and then you make the offer proof to but your position would be even if you should alert her explained why she was gone she did get to explain that she was gone and that had something to do with medical without getting into the details and that was good enough yes yes is specially when time for him to pick up every city let me ask one other question did these rumors have any legitimate business are you talking about the brick and mortar stores and yeah once the money laundering conspiracy was in full swing it escalated and every month or so and and i think the testimony up i want to address this argument council made about there being some link because of the tax the tax services story the trying to buy an individual and i remember it's you know it's been a while since i've read this record i remember that part of the testimony i do not remember that being a part of the government i don't remember it in the looking through the brief trying to find it because it was i'll just say this about it if if it is some crucial link between all these organizations it was certainly not in the size that the trial and i don't think it was anyway because i'm fairly certain that i know this tax organization was one of the money and all of the organizations were using a lot of folks and transferring money but when it came to the cures who were down below none of them appear to be using the same careers in the i don't know that that's a fair characterization frankly and i do believe it emphasizes the problem that we're trying to urge the court  to review which is what can a trial judge do when this single conspiracy has been alleged and yet all this evidence is coming in in the trial judge is trying to figure out along the way whether there really is a single conspiracy or multiple conspiracy did anyone ask for a bill of particulars i i don't believe her allowed to do that right that's that's true that's that's fair but i will say judge who's a it was confronted with the she several times in in i don't know what a trial judge could do i mean the obligation of the government would have been to segregate these folks but the government didn't go far enough in the in the organizations to be able to do that it stopped with the organizers and there were multiple organizers  that but i mean rebus and the people around in his immediate orbit were the ones who don't with the the money launderers i think that's that's fair  not say there's a fatal conflict between the two jury answers if that's your contention that needs to be clearly stated in the briefing you certainly say hey they acquitted or she wasn't part of the drug conspiracy but you don't say there's a fatal conflict and therefore you cannot issue a judgment based upon the guilty finding that's correct judging by all means that is correct what i'm trying to say maybe not very well what i'm trying to say is by virtue of the jury finding her not guilty the jury isn't nessun saying that they're not finding this others to be credible the same evidence that they  unquote relied on in finding her guilty other countries were not as ninety five percent they may have thought there was ninety four on the drug and ninety six on the money laundering and that's where we ended up we don't it's not the same thing as there's no way they could have found her guilty of the money laundering by acquitting her if they had found her innocent of the drug conspiracy might have a better argument they did it or not guilty to the very big difference i understand and we take what we can get you o in anything in federal court you go and but we take what we can get and like i followed the rule twenty nine motion also arguing that it was inconsistent judgments and ruled as he rolled have a lot of respect for judge azad but at the end of the day we don't believe that the government proved that and that's why we're asking you all to reverse the decision for this really to torture all right so thank you very much and thank you for the opportunity judge's upwell i want to say to both of you both you and mr springer since your court appointed we know that you're doing and special service for the court in representing these clients and you did a very good job and we certainly appreciate your service thank you some time thank you