charge and i think with this you would have to look at the elements of aiding and abetting liability to determine whether he had these specific intent to facilitate the crime by the principal and whether it was where they had a lab set up and carried to go under different facts where there was some sort of interruption in events with respect to possession i think you could have a different case and i think in that circumstance the it's really aiding and abetting liability they're required elements specifically the specific intent to facilitate the principles commission of the crime is the protection against any kind of extreme extension across various districts and here you would say you would still have to look at whether there was aiding and abetting liability in the initial district so that someone the end of the defendant's position if he truly did not  that the principles commission in the central district health fornia he surely didn't in the eastern district of california either so we're not asking for an extension of theories of liability that go beyond any kind of factual or reasonable balance we're you have a continuing crime that occurs both in the central and eastern district of california to make a difference i'm sure i know what your am he was not indicted in the eastern district cor indictment the aiding and abetting invade our office doesn't charge aiding and abetting divine knowledge as a separate theory even when that is our main theory based on the case law out there that that holds that it need not be charged intent to distribute charge where someone had supplied another the principal who then went into another district and the second district was the place of trial and all four of those cases the other circuits of held this theory of liability and venue on this theory of why villa t against a venue challenge the district court seem to be concerned that there was something different about this case because the defendant actually ask the pseudoephedrine prior to transferring it to the sacrament of base defendants in the central district of california but i think under the case law it's clear that these are not to actual possession and aiding and abetting liability are not mutually exclusive theories of liability in fact in the eighth and eleventh circuit cases that i just mentioned it appears from the facts that the supplier at one time possessed in the other districts the not the district of trial  either the drugs or the counterfeit bills in each in addition in the d c circuits decision in raipur the opposite argument argument was being made that in fact the defendant had to have actually in record another district the district court also seemed concerned that the defendants participation in the crime ended in the central district of california and you know it was that he didn't do anything in the eastern district of california itself yes so i think the jury could infer that the although this was the first feeling there was a possibility at least of of future dealings the sacrament of base defense there was testimony that this wasn't their first trip to los angeles and this wasn't the first time that they considered doing this and i like to reserve the remaining time there must be one for it well it is and frankly i think in this case that the district court was right and it may be right limited to the particular facts in this case but i think that the issue that really troubled the district court was  under these facts are there any limitations spatial temporal hikes of limitations on the aiding and abetting concept or does it just go along for the back were forever are there times when you can say timeout you just can't stretch and get around the constitutional venue issue and i think that what particularly focused this issue was the application of the linnet case to the other counts where the court found it was no other evidence beyond the actual transaction of the sale that caused valdez santos to be a participant beyond that that particular point in time and for that matter in los angeles as opposed to anything beyond the central district the  no evidence that would suggest mr l the center was really on notice that something was going to go on beyond the limitations of the of the los angeles or central district area the government just commented that they knew each other there was some suggestion in the conversation that we knew each other and as i recall the testimony that's true but they knew each other from mexico where the transaction occurred where all of the communications occurred involving bill the santos according to the evidence of the trial court was in los no evidence of that at least that i recall in the in the transcript of the fact that these folks were from sacramento there was if there was any conversation about that at the time the actual transaction took place there was it was not repeated at that at the time of trial and  my knowledge there was no communications to that effect so i think that the thing that troubled the district court in which there was some concern about the concept when the does the government have the right to run an end run around the venue requirement of the sixth amendment and in this case given the particular facts where there was clear evidence that could have supported these charges in the central district i think the district court's assessment was that there's got to be some way to limit the  government's ability to simply pull everyone into this particular district on some theory of aiding and abetting that has no limitation and i think that's where the district court got into the the sort of if you will that putting a limitation on the aiding and abetting concept here the the issue becomes i think really how much can the government go back does that act of a transaction  in this case the sale of these pseudoephedrine pills is there a continuing interest in what happens with that material once it's transfer foreseeable which comes to mind in my thinking is the pinkerton kind of analysis in conspiracies and i think that's where it breaks down is because embedding i think does not necessarily imply that continuing foreseeability if you're going to get into that reasonable man analysis of foreseeability maybe it would apply in this case maybe it wouldn't i think the court looked at the evidence on the rule twenty nine motion and said they haven't really doesn't support that kind of analysis on the record that was made in that's why they rule twenty one i think those ultimately granted this to the other two counts leaving only the last count and ultimately the court decided on that count the evidence was all involved conduct in the central district that's why we're here those people who are the purchasers not necessarily on the part of the seller and i think that's where you divest your interest you care what happens once the buyer gives you the money if there was evidence that there would be a continuing interest of some type in the cases are there's a couple of them if there are factually there's a continuing interest in what happens to the material once it changes hands in this case it's a one time sale the vesting of any interest and i think the court was impressed that the  there may be no limitation to the long arm of the government reaching backwards along the trail as long as there may be some evidence that says whoever dealt with this material or transported it or had something to do with it was aware it could be ultimately converted into you know at least an illegal substance the precursor type of chemicals and i think that's exactly why the district court said there's got to be a limit this is a case where the facts show no continuing interest in that material once the transfer occurred government taking back prosecuting in the central writers just briefly with respect to whether the defendant was aware that the sacramento defendants were from outside los angeles the testimony was that while he was a replacement supplier it was brokered that he would be a replacement supplier by someone only known as roman states from redwood city who was and phone contact with the sacramento defendants back and forth and that's how it was arranged so whether he believe that the defense were traveling north to the eastern  or whether you believe they were traveling north through the eastern district to the northern district of california that plus the fact that jose makhanya brought his family along and had luggage that need to be taken out of his truck prior to landing the truck to the defendant  were all indications to him that these were not people that were going to go down the block and manufacture right there with respect to the concern was like i said not a street dealer who was meeting someone for the first time in probably the last time this was someone who dealt in large quantities who charged according to jorge alla a pretty steep price and he gave his phone number at the end of the transaction i think there there is an indication of a shared interest by the defendant in the success of what was going on with these customers so that they might come out again and i see my time is up