were convicted of conspiring with one another and with edwin rodriguez but the evidence at trial demonstrated that no such conspiracy existed at best the c s and maldonado had a buyer seller relationship court ticks off quite a few things a jury could see is going beyond a one off buyer seller they're sharing resources they're loaning cars back and forth to each other they're jointly brokering the to have people standing up and announcing i am conspiring with so and so why isn't that a perfectly good circumstantial evidence supporting the jury's verdict there are just circumstantial evidence that can be considered but it is not enough on its own to establish that a conspiracy actually existed why not there because they're why doesn't it allow the jury to say there's more going on between you guys than buyer seller and you're in a part of the reason it doesn't is because of the other circumstances in the case which actually involve some of the other issues in this appeal where it was actually conspiring with another person to rob the c s up a same time something that was going on i mean that's what the government says mean i think the district court says it's some point there's no honor among thieves you know but doesn't mean that they aren't working together to sell the cocaine but if one of them thinks they're working together on the other one is intending instead to work against that party which is very hard working together for the sales now maybe there's going to be a further transaction in this case what was actually happening is one party was misleading the other one into thinking they were working together while intending to rip them off instead and when that happens there no actual agreement one from mr missy s in this case thought there was an agreement he intended to distribute his drugs that he had with his cousin grossly edda and one way to not have stepped in and agreed with another person to rob those drugs to steal them and to rob the other and that shows that there was never actually a agreement to commit a specific crime between the parties because one person was misleading the other one all along now i mean never it's a strong word there's that that might be for i actually don't agree with you even about that one transaction but it is just one transaction maldonado and my c s are doing quite a bit together but what they are doing is a series of transactions where one person is selling drugs to another they're not in each other's businesses a lot of evidence affronted cocaine sales but fronting on its own isn't enough to establish a conspiracy it is circumstantial evidence that can be considered but it doesn't establish that there was some sort of ongoing agreement with what would happen to the drugs after they were distributed  sharing of a car sharing and provision of equipment cooking cutting agents and yes there's a lot more there is there were added sales i agree that th evidence did exist but it's not a sickly a jury argument this argument was made to the jury the buyer seller instruction was given in this case the jury was entitled to accept and reject the defense arguments but the problem in this case runners the jury was misled into what the law was about what the law was that they were supposed to consider because of the two jury instruction issues that are raised in this brief the first being the multiple conspiracy instruction where the jury was told that they could convict if they thought that there was a smaller conspiracy than the one that was charged in the indictment as long as it was included in the larger conspiracy that was charged so but there's nothing wrong with that mean that instruction came from the pattern instructions basically  it's a little unusual or maybe a lot unusual for the government to ask for but they explained themselves by saying to the defense had raised so much about the scope of the conspiracy that they thought in this instance it would be useful for the jury so it's given it's not you're not arguing that this was an inaccurate statement of the law not an accurate but misleading in this case because of the way it's worded because it uses language like included within the larger conspiracy but that's and they're also looking out for themselves because there was no agreement among the three charged defendants rodriguez movin out on the sirius to ever distribute cocaine together for the same goal there  there has to be an agreement that they will distribute cocaine and if modern audio agrees with the c s that they're going to distribute cocaine among each other and rodriguez has some other agreement with maldonado that doesn't make them party to the c and the government convinces the jury just that a and b conspired for exactly that purpose for exactly that in that that's no good i'm saying if they have charged that there is one overall conspiracy and the evidence establishes that a and b had some conspiracy and b and c had a different conspiracy with different and well i'm not here i'm not agreeing with you that it's different though and that's the jewelry stores you know that if a b and c are charge that it's a conspiracy about cocaine in a certain neighborhood of the city and it's you know their interactions that deal with that but in the end the proof is really solid at least the jury thinks just on be for the cocaine for that part of the city for that sort of thing then why isn't that fine that's the that's the smaller conspiracy that's included within the larger conspiracy because in this case your honor missy is drugs are the jewelry store more than auto and rodriguez conspiring to rob him instead of robbing a jewelry store and you don't conspire to rob somebody that you're in a criminal agreement with or there is no agreement that would also get that from i mean i'm sure because it's the definition of an agreement there are both parties have that have a meeting of the minds about what they're agreeing to ok if you're misled about what is being discussed you can't agree about what the goal of the conspiracy is and that's what happened here one party took advantage of the other one or attempted to do so and when that happens because they're not on the same pitch that's what the evidence establish that's why the defense meeting of the mind instruction should have been given here and if it wasn't given as worded then some clarification about what it meant to agree should have been given good morning me please the court the evidence was sufficient and fully sufficient to overcome the buyer seller defense jury was properly instructed and as the court recognized today i mean there was evidence to show regus had been dealing in methamphetamine would would you consider that to be a failure of proof of the conspiracy charge in the indictment as to that part if  brokered as middleman a two kilograms cocaine deal which they're you know clearly conspiring to put a drug seller together with a drug buyer and share equally in the profits of the transaction that's a clear drug conspiracy among those two after their robbery plot of that same night never happens maldonado wiseass and rodriguez conspired on january twenty seventh less than now that the robbery plot as shown here this morning was largely what led to the government seeking the multiple conspirac conspired together afterwards though the two could exist together and did in fact exist together so given that defense it was appropriate for the district court to inform net jacks or what's sort of the jackson i guess i understood that no one was complaining that it was illegal flaw in his statements in the presentation of the multiple conspiracy instructions right there any other  s made to the other and that's the only objection that i understand aside from the fact that the government the proponents did not the defense they attempted to argue that this was solely a instruction to be offered a defense request the only other objection i understand got can't be right i mean the court could have decided to do it on her own she's running if it's an accurate statement of the one is warranted by the circumstances it's appropriate to give to help the jury the only other objection i understand is that  i think i understand it is that given the instruction if the jury had convicted on the basis that only instruction i don't think that that's not correct and the government's response i take it as you went through the santiago process and proved by preponderance that there was a conspiracy right that the government had appropriately you know i for them to declare whether they found it a three person conspiracy or a two person conspiracy both bases were lawful would have been lawful and both bases were supported by the facts honor the government's argument that we don't need to worry about rodriguez ignores that rodriguez was part of the conspiracy that was charged this wasn't a charge that mysterious and maldonado conspired with just each other on one specific drug transaction where someone was working at the middleman it was a conspiracy between three people that went on for a period of months among three people you are correct your honor among three people that went on for a period of months and that was the charge that these defendants were defending against the defendants might have participated in drug transactions between each other missi is involved not many of them were cast transactions a couple of them were fronted but that doesn't establish that they conspired with everybody who each individual also may have conspired with separate the charge or was it sounds to me like an attack on the notion that there should ever be a multiple conspiracy instruction well not ever necessarily are errantly wrong that you government always has to prove that every single person named in the indictment actively participated in a conspiracy but what they have to prove is that the conspiracy they charge did exist and this case the conspiracy they charge was this three person conspiracy if they if they can only prove a subset of that conspiracy existed and not the larger conspiracy and other subsets of the same charge conspiracy also existed and worked at cross purposes with each other which is what happened here in the defendants aren't guilty of participating in a conspiracy together there is no joint objective among the people that were actually charged that's the problem with the evidence in this case your honor and the government brings up that mr mysie as i conducted a transaction with right rodriguez that he went for nine ounces and gave him a kilogram that doesn't support that there's a conspiracy there are among the three of them that supports that mr c s is trying to sell as much of his product as possible in a buyer seller fashion he wants rodriguez it take so he gets more money there's no agreement about that among the three in fact rodriguez and maldonado are complaining about that to each other so this shows that the three of them did not inspire and any subset is not included in a larger overarching conspiracy because there was no larger agreement there are no further questions i