according so that we may start court the honorable united states court of appeals for the st circuit is now in session all persons having any business before this honorable court may draw near give their attendance and they shall be heard god save the united states of america and this honorable court court is in session today's case will be called as previously announced in the times will be as a lot of the counsel this nd case today glaser before you begin there are two housekeeping matters that i need to address st i would like to ask judge sally and then judge chaotic to test their microphones by saying good morning so their image will appear on each of the other time if you are requesting a rebuttal i would like to know now because it will help us with our time keeping i don't believe on the agree about thank you for the offer oh alright thank you then you may proceed good morning your  if you could ask my brother two tickets came out of and i could see all three of gensis thank you good morning to the honorable court and think you for offering this  opportunity i do before i begin i still i don't see just kind and it might be important to see him if he wants to ask me if question a question of whether the sentencing guidelines were applied correctly and i want to start with the argument i've been to point the increase that my client received for  the go between that connected the confidential informant who was in jail with people outside who were the co defendants and who made all of the arrangements to find the guy negotiate the prices go meet with the people who provided the guns sell the guns and those things happened there were a series of conversations all  that there is nothing that suggests that he knew about the additional sales that he was part of them in the way but i don't you don't one the wildest arms sale two plants then i also agree with however and it goes also to the question of the quantity of firearms for which he my client argue that i know that's the government's argument although the case that they use is actually i believe miss what it used because it into really arguing when when when conspiracy ends and another conspiracy begins in this case there's nothing that would suggest that the final sales which he should be charged only with well is reasonable only foreseeable to him in the conspiracy has liability that depends on him being involved in indeed even being the we're all each and every overt act of the conspiracy absolutely and i i suggests he doesn't in the conversations he approves of the fact that the the that he knows a bit about have been that the numbers have been scratched out and it stretches it to say that because he made the initial contact he was therefore not therefore continued to be simple domingo i think he was i think there were two not setting up conversations as much as acting as if you're a leader in this sense it's a good question and unfortunately i have to say that i would have to win every argument particularly the criminal history in order for in order a mere go between or someone who was on one or not someone who was instrumental in setting up an arms sale and someone who knew that the ballot then my concern goes away right and i think that was why i started where i did in my argument because that was what dominated in the prior part of the discussion and what are the two issues that's raised in the reply brief so seems to be of greatest concern we do believe that all of the enhancements were properly applied and that there hasn't been any showing that they were clearly erroneous which is a difficult standard there was can be questions of interpretation including by  the defendant meant when he said scratch it all off or what he meant to say when he was what role he meant some play when he was directing them as to how much to charge or what firearms to sell but questions of interpretation can't be clear position because they're the only real sort of circumstantial evidence that favored imposition of the knowledge that it would be if there were a reason to believe that it would be used for illegal purposes was  removal of the serial numbers and here that's very clearly true and we have direct evidence found by the district court if not challenge and shown to be clearly erroneous that he directed that removal so that alone would seem to be enough to support trafficking but there are other indications getting the type of firearms the price of the firearms being over the market price and other reasons to believe that the defendant and that's all it shows reason to believe not actual knowledge that you both that will conclude the argument in this case i think that you're on this session of the honorable united states court of appeals is now recessed until the next session of the court god save the united states of