the tracey connelly knowingly and intentionally joined a conspiracy the government has not done so for that reason this court should reverse the decision of the district court and remain and for entry of a judgment of acqui connelly was convicted after a jury trial of four offenses conspiracy to possess cocaine attempt possessed cocaine each with intent to distribute and two charges based on unlawful possession of a fire prove these allegations the government presented testimony that mr connelly had met with a group of would be robbers on the morning of november one two thousand and eleven and medic and with them later that same day when the leader of the group theory and flowers acting on information provided to him by a confidential informant decided to carry out a plan to rob a stash palace containing fifty kilograms of cocaine of course the stash house the drugs the men guarding those drugs were all fictional and mary and mr connelly and five other men were instead arrested the government unsurprisingly makes much of the burden that it offended carries when fired when filing a motion for acquittal under rule twenty nine and that burden is a steep one but as this court's decisions in cases like terence jones and dirk jones make clear that burden is satisfied with the government's proof move trucks testimony of this meeting however fails to show that connally actually joined the conspiracy tracks testimony was that it was adams not c acts even assuming that connally asked some of these questions about the source even it doesn't establish that he joined the conspiracy the government then suggests that when connally met up with the group later that that helps seal his membership in the conspiracy but that's not so trax testimony which again it is the only direct source of information about what was said at this meeting stated only that when the meeting concluded that the group was going to meet again later in two to three hours there's no testimony that what was said was that the robbery was actually going to take place in two to three hours or that further planning for the robbery was going to take place in two to three hours only that they were going to meet again at that time was to calmly test or told the police of the time of arrest that he thought they were going to be going on a cleaning job  met up with the group again they met in a codefendant jones's band which was being used as a work band and there's testimony there's record evidence that you know there were ladders there were drills there were tools tool boxes all this stuff in the back of the van where he initially met with everyone later on that day at the time of the arrest he had been driven in that van to the park reserve or the forest preserve in was getting out of that van and into another one when the so any cleaning supplies in the when he moved into in the second van i do not believe so your honor so that was a rental van that was there but that was at  at that point for him to get out of the band with with the cleaning supplies with the tools with everything else get into the second van and say hey wait a second you know this just doesn't seem right what's going on guy is there wasn't really an opportunity for that to happen as soon as he moved from the one van to the other van the the bust signal was given a flash bang goes off agent's clothes and where were the guns the guns were in a tool no evidence that connally ever touched the tool box his prints were on the tool box and there's no testimony or ever any evidence that he moved that box or ever saw what was in it and that's something that was picked up by the by the district court below that there was no evidence either actual or constructive possession of those guns because there was no evidence that he saw what was put into that box or ever handled the so based on this you know the only thing the only evidence you know connally's even knowledge of what is going on is from trap and his testimony and what is said about that meeting this goes to the second argument that mr conway makes which is the motion for a new trial even assuming that this court does not reverse and remain for entry of a judgment of acquittal it should vacate the denial of the motion for a new trial course on the motion for a new trial one of the elements that you know that district court was supposed to consider was the credibility of witnesses who had testified that's under this this court's decision and u s b washington  instead of doing that the district court merely restate it based on its findings as to the motion for judgment of acquittal sufficient evidence to support the verdict was found and that was enough for the court to deny the motion for understanding of that standard all i can say is that based on the ruling she in unseated the standard correctly but then proceeded to not apply it that you know under the motion for acquittal she was frankly forbidden from considering the credibility of any of the witnesses before her whereas on the other hand under washington for a motion for a new trial she is required to at least consider that credibility and plainly did not based on  it please the court good afternoon my name is megan stack and i represent the government in this matter the district court i'm not really denied i need some help here because what we have here is of the government where when after someone who was so clearly a mope and so clearly desperate that he didn't have gas money to get home from work he was manipulated by co defendants and the government who lobbied and charged him with statutory minimum that required consecutive sentences so that the judge clearly upset judge  her hands were tied on sentencing and all in a crime that the government created would you agree that he was the minor player as compared to the others i certainly would not agree with that your honor the defendant was one of three individuals who had been tasked with the most violent aspect of this conspiracy they were the ones who are going to go into the stash house ar with guns take over the drugs from guards they expected in time so i think that is it's very difficult to describe him as a minor player the evidence to the contrary established that the defendant was advised of and agreed to participate in a conspiracy to commit this armed robbery of a drug stash house the government's evidence with respect to the charged offenses included testimony from our cooperators recounting a planning meeting during which the specific need for guns was addressed the presence of armed guards was identified and the various roles of the defendants were assigned to cooperate or testimony was corroborate in significant ways first by the defendant's own post arrest statement a recording a number of stipulations and then phone and cell site records and in addition the defendant's own conduct in the wake of that planning meetings stood as important crop aeration evidence of his assent and agreement to the conspiracy following that planing meeting several hours later the defendant showed up on mozart street in chicago met with the other  into that work van and on the way to the final staging location donned latex gloves which cannot be described as appropriate for doing any type of construction or cleaning work but rather their purpose was clearly to prevent the robbers from leaving fingerprints behind on the guns once the defendant arrived at the final staging location he exited that crowded work and entered the second undercover van which as your honor pointed out was entirely empty not a single tool or construction item or cleaning item was moved from one band to the other the only thing that moved were the three robbers all of whom were gloved up and a tool box full of guns and the walkie talkie that they could use to communicate during the robbery in the record on that point your honor is a little unclear it's clear that it was moved by someone one of those three individuals from one band to the other however when the defendant was specifically questioned about that two axes he gave sort of a vague statement about it i believe his direct w were he told him to move there or the tool box or something like that he used some sort of specific pronouns and when the agent attempted to drill down more specifically about that tool box the defendant unexpectedly became very agitated and angry which of course suggests that he was well aware of the fact that guns were inside the tool box and he understood that making further comments about that particular subject could be problematic for him once defendant was had moved into the second  van with everything he needed to commit an armed robbery empty except for two books correct into a box containing guns the only thing left to do i mean when you say the band was empty but when was it found empty from the government's perspective the fact that that second van was entirely empty but for the tools needed to commit the robbery which had been brought into that van by the defendants that's of course of significance turning to the defendant's motion for a new trial the district court to not abuse its discretion in denying that motion first the district court's order makes clear it understood the appropriate standard as the judge pointed out the district court cited specifically that motions for a new trial require the court to consider the credibility of the government's witnesses and the text of the order indicates that in assessing the evidence presented before the jury including substantial impeachment  you on this new trial question we have the citation of the correct standard then we have the indication that evidence was sufficient to convict there is a disconnect there so what do you see as the clearest thing clearest signal from the district judge that she was applying the correct standard you know actually do some action and actually exercise discretion yes or if we parse the actual language of the district court you should first set out the standard implicating the consideration of credibility of the witnesses the court went on to then say having already determined that there was sufficient evidence to support this conviction the court turns to the defendant's other arguments regarding traditional error and the government interprets that language as follows it was a signal by the district court that look you know in the earlier part of my decision i've already fully assess the evidence with respect to the sufficiency arguments and as part of that discussion she identified this issue about trap the significant impeachment about trap and determine that the judge the jury excuse me found to be credible i think in the wake of that what you can infer from the order is that the district judge you know saw no reason to upset the jury's conclusion in that regard it was a properly instructed jury considering properly admitted evidence they had a full complement of both impeachment and corroborating information and after sifting through all of that they determined that trapper's credible so there was no basis for the district court to upset that finding that's our interpretation of the order your honor with respect to defendant's second position he should not have been permitted to assert an entrapment defense in this case he could not have argued that he was directly and trapped of course because he had no direct contact with any government agent at any point during the case so the only available defense would have been one of  defendant was not recruited by the first level or even the second level defendant he was recruited by the third level defendant anthony adams and based on this court's prior ruling in the board case the factual circumstances of  said that he did not lay out the entire plan to the defendant there that you barely knew that person here while it is adams that contacted connelly in the first instance about this and brought him to the basement meeting it was miriam flowers that was the primary contact with the government agency who according to the said testimony we have told conley what it is that conley knew about this robbery plan so i would say that this