convicted of conspiracy two counts conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with intent to deliver and a nine twenty four c his action of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime i did not appeal his sentencing he received  habit the conspiracy part he was he was charged with conspiracy with conspiracy and whether in fact he was a member of the conspiracy or not i think it's also a factual consideration satchel testified i explain your live we have been conducting surveillance we have been watching them and conclude that he was aware that he knew the drugs given all of the facts and given what was known to the special agents at the time there's no reason to conclude that he knew that there were going to be addressing that that there was no evidence presented whatsoever to show that mr ray's province had any connection to should be permitted to manc jury certainly draw inferences such as that but i'm saying that if you take a look at the totality of the facts and what was knowing to the agency at the time and to the participants in the certainly there because they believe that a drug deal is going to go down that's not a question questioning eyes which mr ray has parts there because he knew that a drug deal was going to go down and i'm submitting in the end what i've argued obviously is that that's not the case that if you take a look at all of the of the news there's no indication there's nothing to show that mr various points himself had knowledge that in fact the deal as he put it after confronted my age but he said nothing about knowing that drugs were involved there was no there's no evidence that he had knowledge that drugs were inside the car or there with the van  we don't have the recorded statement number two we have the recollection of an officer who was questioning a person in a different language english to spanish without an actual interpreter and number three we have that officer right for our purposes without objection correct yes yeah i would have to agree with you and it seems to me that the kinds of arguments you're making were available to be made to the jury certain thank you we asked you a lot of questions or will give you some reb happened i would also briefly i want to i want to stop you because you were presumption are present and i'm not sure i understand that the question is whether the circumstantial evidence terms of the phone calls look in previous cases where you have a drug case usually there are pages and pages of transcripts serve recordings of the context of the phone calls and you know what some of the calls are about the drug some of the calls are about all kinds of other things and once you have the actual transcript of the calls or some other evidence to surprised actually someone overhearing someone making a call or something like that it however from the transcript that is not the case for example on january thirteenth the timing of the arrival of the jeep and the arrival o counsel mentioned that i'd just like to quickly address when the case agent interviewed raise privacy at the headquarters there was an interpreter not a professional driver but there was a spanish speaking agent a native spanish speaker where it is an interpreter and that is all part of the record at the trial court didn't actually testify the trial yes he did and he was cross examined he testified that he interpreted for the conversation the other critical point i want to make  and i think you've all correctly focused on the exact text of the asian test the first thing that he was asked was did you ask various kinds if he was involved in a drug deal yes i did where to go and when to be there for this drug deal he drove he was the lead car that went there saw the mark made one separately he drove to the exact spot in the field they took up the surveillance position across the street he's armed with a loaded gun and that was expert testimony from the daks agent a trial that this is exactly the kind of behavior that you see from participants in drug deals armed with loaded guns carol surveillance behavior so i think when you take all of that together view because to be able to keep the complex under surveillance without being exposed they really had to take positions where they could just see who was coming going from the complex they couldn't see what was going on in the lot the only way they saw what was going on a lot i special agent jewel made to very very passes by the entrance to the lot and he looked around and that was when he testified that he saw the two meetings between the various conspirators inside a lot other than that they couldn't see anything that was going on inside the complex they could just see who was coming and going so if drugs were being loaded into the van transfer whatever they there was no way that they could have seen any of that now turning to mr potter's army guy and as everybody  acknowledged here i think the operative principle is that if you can draw a reasonable inference from the evidence you must draw out in favor of the government and against the defendant when you're talking about the sufficiency of the evidence until now the case against  guy was absolutely a circumstantial case and it has hacked the courts have looked at circumstantial cases and drug conspiracies and they have said there was not sufficient proof maybe the person was involved but there was not sufficient proof that the person knew they were involved in a drug deal those cases are nothing like this case those cases usually involve people who are sort of seem to be fringe players peripheral players the evidence that this trial viewed in the light most favorable to the government strongly suggests some involvement by both sides on the guy now after the cars arrive it's out of our phonied as house the high the civic takes off it's never heard or seen from again and then everybody starts to head over to baltar's army guy's apartment complex and his apartment complex is the central focus of the activity that morning that's where all the conspirators are hanging out in need that's where sal the carbonate is as he's telling the informant i'm still trying to round up all the drugs and remember we're talking about three different types of drugs so we don't know if he's getting them all from one person if you have to go to multiple sources but it took them a little while to round up the drugs then we come to the matter of the phone calls you're honest with mention that on the thirteenth of the day the big deal directly between those two it's a small i think it's roughly a dozen or so on that day i think about ten or twelve on that day now it is of course true that we do not have the transcripts of those conversations and defense counsel argues from the evidence in the totality of the circumstance and the second is drawing reasonable inferences in the government's favor phone records come in as evidence in cases all the time even when there's no recorded conversation that's because it's well recognised that even if you don't have the text of the conversation you can look at the circumstances who called who at what time and what else was going on and you can draw reasonable inferences from that and as i think our brief lays out extensively wife's car ends up being loaned to the two conspirators who are clearly going to be serving as an armed muscle during the actual deal then they all drive up to the area of the azteca restaurant and they all do the same thing as they get the car with rays ponson burnell jimenez and the car with bulges on the guy and in the nine eleven hold side by side and sit like that in a parking lot they're in a position to have a conference and in fact if they were going to talk that's how they'd have to do it ponson brown human is didn't have cell phones with them so after having an opportunity to check out the layout and see what's going on with a deal supposed to happen those two cars pull directly side by side and then they so they drive back past the informant and they can continue going south on the road and they basically leave the immediate area of the deal and then shortly after that the whole thing falls apart south of our native realizes that the cops are following him more than a peripheral player in the deal this person is central his car being loaned out to the other conspirators his car appearing when's out of arpanet it needs to get his drugs his apartment complex being the central focus of the deal the flight the gun all these things the phone calls suggest and certainly give rise to a reasonable inference that he knew that this was a trivial and those are just the events of the th events of the preceding day january twelfth are arguably every bit as powerful if you look at what happened time january twelfth that's the day that south park and even next twice of the informant to give him the small drug samples and the least beyond that and i think what the evidence strongly suggests and certainly creates a reasonable inference of is actually is involved on the store side of the deal south of argentina has the first meeting with the informant where he gives a methamphetamine  heroin samples and he says i know i'm supposed to bring you a cocaine sample but i don't have that yet i need to meet with my source i'll go meet with my source and then we'll meet up later that day sal the carbonated drives away from that deal minutes after driving away from handing over those samples as he's presumably going to get the cocaine sample he calls baltar's arm a guy south of carbonated goes home goes into his house a few minutes later the white jeep shows up the same one that we've mentioned a couple  times before the one that was registered to baltar's arm a guy in white and right after or basically at almost the moment that the jeep shows up there is a call from south of carbonated to the informant michael caine source just showed up i'm going to come and meet you i've got the drugs south of our canadian heads off for the second meeting with the informant gives him the cocaine sample that white jeep driven by an unidentified hispanic man it was just too far away and couldn't say who it was that white jeep goes where i think it's hard to argue that this does not at the minimum give will rise to a reasonable inference that all of his army guy knew what was going on that he knew that this involves drugs when you've got this degree this extent of involvement again there's nothing like this in any of the cases where you see our courts finding involvement with no knowledge if the court doesn't have any other questions about the facts i do want to very briefly touch on the issue for the concede that the court should have instructed the jury that the amounts were or that they had to find what amount was reasonably foreseeable that's true but ultimately it's a relevant and this is viewed under a plain error standard so unless we have that affects the defendant substantial rights there's no need to the court to do anything and this didn't affect his substantial rights because he was also convicted as an aider and abettor and as an aider and abettor he's automatically liable for the full amount reasonable foreseeability just doesn't apply and you cited those cases from this circuit and others in our brief and in the appellate reply brief there's simply no response to that so i take it that that's that's not in dispute and so at the end of the day he got the mandatory minimum on the drug count of ten years so whether the conspiracy second stands or falls makes no difference because he still gets ten years under the aiding and abetting sentence unless your honour's have any further questions that's all i sheep which boat but both these actually are on the twelfth my client did not have a driver's license there was one person seen driving the white sheet and that person was not responsible for whatever if whatever if anything occurred with the white jeep and first of all i would state that only one person arrived at the house on the twelfth my client did not have a driver's license and also he was not pineta called the informant saying he was waiting for his cocaine stores at some point the white jeep and a high into civic arrived and three men were seen arriving at the home at ten twenty the che correct one statement made by mr dionne with regard to the facts and that's with regard to the apartment the testimony from a special agent satchel was that he actually drove into the apartment complex itself through the apartment understand that's not in the record but he actually drove through the complex mr dionne and it's argument also says that the cases cited in particular in my brief we're talking about fringe players  boxes being transferred between cars he's looking up and down the street that's much more than just being on the fringe if you take a look at our united states versus by the t s a i have a lot of people actually five of the drugs into the country from mexico and then were actually handling the money when the arrest went down again more than just the fringe players last but not least i'd like to address one more stated francisco told him to get a gun and it gives one hundred dollars if he watched francisco's back during the deal despite the fact that my client was confronted with the fact that they found drugs in the car he was consistent before and  after when he quote unquote changed his statement he said he did not know what was going on prior to the age of telling him about the drugs in the car and after being told about the drugs in the car my client did not say i knew there were