this type of issue is a fact specific issue that that turns on the facts of each particular case there there is a statement by this court of mickey setting forth and refactor as they're not exclusive the importance of the issue for my client is that of course the resulting conviction resulted in a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison in this case there was an extensive investigation of in that the courts have looked at it and analyzing this type of issue for sufficiency is the accessibility and availability of the firearm to the drug trafficker i would submit to the court that  a loaded firearm in a lot in the safe that it's close to the locked is not easily accessible in a setting where there's no evidence of drug trafficking at the premises this unlike many of the other reported cases this is not a stash house or a drug house where people are come continue to buy drugs there is no evidence of  manufacturing of drugs of wing of drugs of pictures of drugs there it's not a situation where there's numerous loaded firearms around the premises with it outside of containers that are accessible to at whether any reasonable jury or from the evidence of the record could have found that this was used in furtherance of drug trafficking yes you are that's kind of a tough standard under these circumstances isn't it at first glance i would agree with you that it's a tough standard but if you look at the specific end we're asking this court to performance review function and look at the at what was presented to the jury and determine whether they could reasonably infer that and i i would submit that the setting of this case it's very much like the plumber case that i cited in the brief where the gentleman has a gun that's found in a safe that's locked that's down loaded gun next to drugs in the court there said that that was enough to support the convictions and what why is that there has to be a connection between the gun and the drug crime and in this particular case with all the evidence of the case there's some telephone calls  we see one or two people observed coming to the premises at times removed from when this gun is found there's never any discussion of the gun being present in these transactions and i think  gun isn't loaded in a closed safe as a matter it's right next to the large amount of cash could be drug proceeds well that is a circumstance obviously while we're looking at circumstantial evidence and circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict is it no if the court has said many times that circumstantial evidence will support a conviction but the court has to look at what is the circumstance and what is the certain what is the inference that whether a reasonable jerk could draw a so what what's wrong with drawing the inference that the gun and the the money the money is drug proceeds are i gather tied together there's there's the gun is found in the clothes safe unloaded in a room that the middle east is appears to be the bedroom of my client there's four people present at the premises and well that's that's the jury had before it even if even if somebody only even if someone else only he would have constructive possession of weapons he's got access to the safe it's got his money in it right the step you have to take is to establish that that he knew that the gun was in the safe in the oh ok and that he he intended to use that gun in some fashion not used a gun but to possess that gun in connection with his drug trafficking i mean everybody i think even jurors know that drug dealers that have a lot of cash on hand usually have weapons on hand to protect their cash from getting stolen i mean it's just a natural connection right well there's there's frequent yes i think jurors know that from from their common knowledge but and there's frequent testimony about that by officers as experts and at the same time in the case law in the discussion in the statute mere possession of the gun is not enough and you have to show some connection between the gun and the crime and there's really not ever seen with a gun the gun is not discussed today any particular time this is not a place where he's transacting the drug crime all it is is a safe that has money and drugs in it and there are i've cited some cases where we have drug dealers that have  unloaded guns in fairly close proximity that's held not to be sufficient for a juror to make that conclusion why why is that because you've got to you're talking about a conviction and you've got to tie it together somehow and there has to be more than just like mere presence of the gun there has to be something what what ties is gun to mr white i mean what are the proofs that it's in the safe and he says it's not my gun i don't know what you know i don't know how i got there it's not not too different than the cases the safe was in his bedroom it's that it was in his bedroom and he has access to the safe it does the access i well this is safe he admitted the drugs and money yeah it was his safe and the money was there with the drugs and there's a bedroom safe yes sustain the conviction for the gun side well i i gan i'm going to focus on it's unloaded and it's not accessible it's not a loaded gun in a closed safe in a location that is not a situs of drug traffic so that's that's the that's i think the distinction that i would make if you look at all the cases that the court has decided and almost always were looking at loaded guns and circumstances that indicate that the drug trade is going on in that location informants have come in made by as at the location other drugs evidence in the form of money and firearms in their personal residences i mean that's true but we're talking about a specific statute the specific language of the statute and possession in furtherance of as the court described murky there's a univers cases where possession alone may not suffice to suffice to support the conviction on the language and stature so the risk in the court to carefully examine t in this case and in the decide whether in the court's judgment are sufficient to support this conviction from a serious crime i thin may please the court and her death for the united states the maquis factors support of the jury's verdict on the nine twenty four seek out here the first factor the proximity of the gone to the drugs and the cache they were quite close they were in the same safe next to each other yes there was a partition but when you open the safe you could access both of them at the same time without any further effort this case just parallel s and the ball both of which we've cited in our brief both of which involve similar circumstances where there was a lock safe that included both drugs and catch the defendant here and made it it was his safe it was definitely his bedroom when he when the agents searched the house he came out of it completely naked he had been sleeping went back in the bedroom to put clothes on all of his things were in the bedroom he not only admitted that the safe was his he knew how much cash was in there how many pills were in there almost exactly he said nine hundred pills or something like eight hundred ninety eight pills so he knew quite well what was in the safe and although he denied knowing the gun was there his explanation was incredible on its face and the jury was entitled to disbelieve that why would somebody plant a crime gone in his locked safe in his bedroom but leave twenty five thousand dollars of cash in a safe most people aren't dishonest enough to plant a gun but honest enough to say hey you know i'm not i'm not going to touch that cash that's sitting right there so the jury was entitled to view that evidence with common sense and all the appellate claims that the gun was unloaded and that's technically correct yes there was a loaded magazine sitting directly underneath the gun that loaded magazine was not only loaded it was an extended magazine with twenty five rounds in it so yes it was technically unloaded but the magazine is sitting right there in that sense this case resembles water rama the case we've cited in our brief where the gun there was also unloaded but it was sitting on top of box of a mission this was also  revolver there's also a crime gun the picture we've provided in our brief in the appendix shows that some actually took it rail and punched out the serial number with holes and that's important because when somebody expects to use a gun in committing a crime they want to be able to discard it afterwards and if they discard it they don't want to be traced back to them so by obliterating the serial number at least using a gun with an obliterated serial number it makes it easier for him to use the gun in committing the crime because that way it makes it tougher for the law enforcement the police to figure out who's gone that was originally and trace it to it was in a small time drug dealer was in the largest drug dealer in in the history of detroit but ten thousand pills over a year is a significant amount of drugs and he had nine hundred of those pills still in his safe and twenty five thousand dollars in cash is a good one of the cash contrary to  on appeal he was actually conducting drug trafficking from his house now we don't know if they were conducting it from his room but the wiretap showed that he was conducting drug trafficking from his house they showed him talking about meeting suppliers there and i think actually meeting a supplier at that very house argues for the first time that this court should perhaps reconsider or over roll it's cases holding that plea negotiation should be automatically excluded under the speedy trial act i think i think we all know we can't a panel of this court cannot overrule published decisions of our court that only or on bond court can do that or the supreme court can do it so i think that's pretty well settled that is settled judge judge greer and i just want to make an additional point that he brings that for the first time in  so even for purposes of umbach review it would be wait here because it wasn't raised in his opening brief so unless the court has any further questions i would reserve the remainder  where the whole premises was rife with the distribution of opiates and oxycontin cottons and all sorts of narcotic drugs by that doctor volkmann and where there were dozens or hundreds of  the cubs case is a case where there was an undercover purchase made at the residence in the the search that followed was very shortly done there after there were multiple guns there were there all kinds of quantities of drugs and i think the in the the distinguishing factor there again is this is this was the main site for the drug drug crime the men's