bit of a flashback i was a losing attorney on the welsh case that i had to listen to everything on and i don't get it from the court that much so it's kind of ironic that may please the court i mr cantor i am west dodge and i represent leroy schumacher in this case we definitely don't have the technical issues you just heard on the prior case but just to go over things very briefly mr schumacher was was here in omaha nebraska just kind of an average blue collar guy lived in south omaha center street and in may of two thousand and fifteen there was a trailer that was stolen that had a gutter machine in it ultimately that trailer was sitting in a lot adjacent to mr schumacher property police officers from omaha came to his house asked if they could look around and ask about the trailer in the gutter machine he actually took them to the trailer from his house and they looked through the gutter machine at the officers testified at least one of the officers testified as they pulled up they saw a woman out in the in the front yard and ultimately i think that woman got mr schumacher to the front door  there was also testimony that they saw three vehicles in the driveway at that time when they arrived at believe was about three o'clock in the afternoon when they looked in the after they were done looking at that if the trailer alternately the officer to mr schumacher we want to take you down town to do further interrogation of you there was a woman by the name of veronica that was at the house as well she drove mr schumacher down to the police station the two officers that were involved in the investigation followed mr schumacher was at the police headquarters it appears from about well the initial visit at the house was at three o'clock and he was at police headquarters until nine or nine nine thirty in the evening and somewhere in that range for around eight thirty to nine thirty or so that it appears that the warrant was issued and that they begin to do the search of the house at that time  the government's brief says that there may be a better shorter period of time but what ultimately there was that there was a gap of some amount of time two to three hours to a maximum of five or six hours i believe  schumacher testified her that well was it mr schumacher i apologize at a later officer in the case testified that when they showed up where there used to be three cars in the front of the house there was  the truck that was originally mr schumacher so one of the cars was gone which was probably the one that veronica and mr schumacher took down to the to the police headquarters but the second car was was gone as well there was also testimony that i was a listed from i believe it was officer branch that that there was that he had an a fight another woman at the house so it's possible that there was two women at the house so mr schumacher is gone and he's down at the police headquarters and then ultimately when the warrant is issued sometime after nine or nine thirty they go into the house and they find substantial amounts of of methamphetamine in the main living area of the house it's kind of a broad open  environment with a kitchen and then a living dining area and then there are some cabinets that i think are excessive bill from multiple sides of the of the cabinets in a central area and it had the methamphetamine in  it so ultimately then because of the volumes of the meth and fed to me mr schumacher was charged with possession with intent to deliver and then the the third thing that ultimately happened was this this case was around for about a year it was dismissed on the speedy trial at some point and then recharged and probably within three or four days of trial this other individual this witness named troy record shows he appears at trial and testifies that he's a friend of mr schumacher said that he bought methamphetamine from marry him and his testimony was pretty damning as far as the inclination that mr schumacher was a dealer did mr rickard have anything to do with the gutter machine that yes he did and there's just vague references to that so i don't want to say anything that's not on the record but i think if if you or someone else would take a look at the the record i think there must be there might have been mr records requests to house the the trailer at that location because he had a heart condition or something akin to that and  it was stolen was it was stolen but ultimately my client was not charged with that that theft or anything specifically related to that so yes he was tied to that as well did that come out in the  cross examination of mr ritter that he was involved with the still image i believe i believe it did your honor at once again i'm i'm always leery of being too adamant about those things but i believe that i do recollect that it was discus trial and it was one of the things and now that you've you've gotten into mr record part of my already you know i'm attacking three things here one is in essence it's a chain of custody kind of concept you know this house i think was unintended for a period of time it appeared there was an extra vehicle in front of it that we can't account for in appears there was another human being apparently a female human being that was there that we can account for between the time mr schumacher left the premises and the time and some time later when the y searched the house occurred and then we've got mr records testimony and and my attack on his credibility one of those being that he was i think twice convicted person for dishonesty forgery and the like and that he was looking at a substantial sentence on a a like charge the distribution charge a similar distribution charge that he was going to be sentenced on in the near future and then i'm hoping that the court would juxtapose and i hope i'm using that term correctly that against miss forbes testimony who is the lady that that came in to testify that was a friend of mr schumacher is who had no criminal record that i could find whatsoever if she did it was in significant honestly she pretty much testified that she had involvement with peep all that were involved with methamphetamine and that was somewhat her her connection and had a lot of risk so when you look at the i argued this to the jury when you look at her who had everything to lose testifying and saying that case or anything like that specific but the case i did cite which says just being found in the apollo upon tayo i believe it was just being found in the in the vicinity of the the methamphetamine doesn't i thought i thought that mr schumacher had minute forty four ounces of that was it was he is i don't remember the exact amount he admitted he had to use amount i didn't think it was forty four ounces that he said he you know it and he admitted to there was three my notes my andra no to myself says that but it there was a quote it was a larger quantity that made the i think the government argued that even that alone was more than a personal use of my out definitely  and we don't have really the ability to argue that's not the case i mean our argument focuses on the fact there was other people in the house miss forbes testified that she knew one of those that there's a lady named brian lee that may have or may not have been the other person that the officer saw at the scene but she was known to be distributing and would have large quantities misformed said she saw these large quantities in her possession at mr schumacher house and that she in fact was what she believed to be a distributor your argument is that the butler did it i guess i guess you're wonder if somebody other than my client that did it as far as the distribution aspect of things my argument is somewhat that it's overkill arj but you know that might come in and sentencing when they're totally not the the amount of drugs but when he admits to forty four ounces or whatever a dealer amount i mean that that's all i have to look at why is that not sufficient your honor that i guess i need to read the transcript again because i i don't recollect him admitting to the forty four ounces i thought there was a use amount in the bathroom that was found with it and a minimal amount and then there was two larger quantities that were found in and two different cupboards and i didn't think he admitted to either of those larger quantities and they were in open they were open view strangely too they weren't like he had a box in is in his bedroom that was when you do this that before he went on the stand and he know that he ran the risk of opening up the subject and having did he know about the regard was out there yes he did and if your client testified that the government yes yes and what generally what mr ricard would say yes i i mr cantor was kind enough to call me shortly before we didn't have a written proffer like you typically do because of the short time frames here and so he gave me an overview of what the testimony would be and then what your argument about the weather about when the sale was you're saying that it was insufficient because he was talking about winter and about the time i was reading this it was an april and it was snowing outside so it's a it's a little harder that rascal maybe in arkansas doesn't snow in mar but that's not unusual here that actually feeds into a little of the argument i was going to make in regard to the second argument about the potential new trial if you look at mr schumacher to moni he didn't know necessarily what would come up later at this appellate level anyway you know those types of arguments actually that he discussed that with me when we after he was convicted and i met with him in the jail he said i don't think i lived in that house and in in the winter months when he testified i was like he does testify so i get a barbecue and he was at my house during the summer months and then i said well you you know we've got to find something that says that i mean you were in the house you were written in the utility it would have been april or may not i have not argued we i'm just telling you no you know and i agree with you one hundred percent is pretty common yeah i'm a lifelong of raskin so i understand that in depth but but i guess i was impressed with the fact that he made those statements not knowing where this argument could go we did find the utility bills that are later in february and then i called the landlord in the landlord did agree i was surprised he was so agreeable but he did the affidavit that we submitted and i think the landlord said and again i'm talking off the top of my head here a little bit but you know you have to get the houses utilities and so they don't freeze it in february or whatever but he said i think he moved in and april so we do have a valid argument there and then when judge smith camp and i think that some of the camp is a wonderful judge i've enjoyed working in front of her but in her sentencing mr kantor quotes her her statement in there and she says she was impressed with records of analysis and knowledge of the the house at the time in the make up of the house and she draws out from the fact that he would have been there in the winter but she at that point the transcript wasn't prepared so she she didn't have the ability to look at the transcript and if you look at the transcript there is the discussion that he was at the house at least two there are times he acknowledges he's a friend of mr schumacher was you know and honestly it was a connection through methamphetamine i'm sure in that regard and they had a common acquaintance i can't remember the lady's name but it was that it was a lady that knew the two of them and they had all been in the house together so there's evidence that he was in the house and would have a knowledge of the house which i think contradicts that so i'd like to save a little time and if that you know it's the type of thing we see when you do the c j work and i don't i don't know for sure you're ok thank you you can come to and that if you view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government any reasonable jury can convict the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt i submit to this court that the weight alone found in this residence is evidence of possession with inte redistribute and he's encountered many people before that to support their habit oftentimes biotene or and sell half of that and the evidence cooperates the while the evidence was indicative of drug dealing just from the evidence found the bedroom there was multiple unused small ziploc bag east at the auster testify were commonly used to distribute methamphetamine the defendant told the jury that he possessed those baggies along with the one point six grams and that he used those baggies to ration out his daily use officers found no evidence of rationing of use because of these bags were unused there's no baggies lying around with residue in them the jury obviously rejected his statement and found him guilty in regards to the quantities found in the kitchen there was an ounce found in the kitchen cabinet along with that ounce there was approximately twelve hundred dollars drug records as well as a black digital scale across the kitchen in the kitchen drawer there is another amount of the about a half ounce sixteen grams and that was found along with drug ledgers as well the officer testified that all those items obviously were indicative of a drug deal and there was also paraphernalia found the house that showed that he was using as well in regards to the defendant's claim that there were other parties in there in the residence there's absolutely no evidence that would support the defense statement the officers testified that when they left the residence they secured it they had one officer they left behind and the officer fox testified in the transcript at page thirty two of what procedures are followed those procedures consist of leaving at speak to secure the residence to make sure it was secure while they were obtain the warrant he said officers were already at the scene and they had the place secured that testimony occurred that on page one twenty one of the transcript and then  furthermore when branch research in the residence he told or he testified that the front door was locked in order not to break it they entered through a window there was no one else inside and the only other acts it was a basement door which he said was locked from the inside it was barred and barricaded the officers found no other venue items in the home no evidence of woman's clothing it's woman's toiletries all the evidence pointed to the defendant mr schumacher a view of that evidence again supports the jury's verdict and then in regards to the claim of the newly discovered evidence i submit that that newly discovered evidence simply wasn't material at best it brought into question when mr schumacher moved into his residence was february when he started paying the bills or was sometime thereafter when the landlord who didn't appear for in court submitted affidavit said he believed the defendant may have moved in a and again we are the timing is it is immaterial as to mr record statement of where the defendant kept his struggles he testified about the exact cabinet how it separated the kitchen from the living room testified he wanted a pound it came back about a week later mr schumacher sold my half pound again retrieved from the center cabinet area and i remember mr record saying he still wanted despond so he went back a third time on the third yes the officers knew who mr schumacher was dealing with they had other information that wasn't submitted at trial they did a later search warrant on the house that i did not bring up but mr schumacher brought it up i didn't get into the details of what information they had because one of the gals that mr record was dating was a sagna smithburg officer has spoken to her before they knew she was getting drugs from schumacher and she was supplying them back and forth based on their knowledge we went and found mr record who was in jail he wasn't at the time when it didn't want to cooperate we informed him that we had a trial coming up with mr schumacher and would you like to give us your knowledge about it as for the first time about four days before trial he described the inside of this residence no one showed him any pictures he described outside of mr schumacher israel residence describes it as a involvement with his girlfriend even talked about this trailer it was his trailer that someone stole from him i don't know how much of this came out on evidence but he was in the hospital on may seventh when they did the search warrant somebody i think it was his girlfriend a drug dealer a drug user stole his trailer and then someone else stole that the gutter machine and put it inside of his trailer and parked it at shoemaker's house moderate evidence we have the evidence the trailer belong to record but the gutter machine he knew nothing about because somebody stole it put it in his trailer would certainly conclude that a reasonable jury could find more than sufficient evidence that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and then lastly the new discovered evidence as judge smith camp said sensing she simply didn't see that it was pivotal ice and that it wasn't material it didn't change the fact that record knew where mr shoemaker kept his drugs the detail that he gave about the area how he described it without ever seeing pictures of him if you were discovered evidence simply just was material but that if there's no more questions ok i think thank you to rock you have a little over a minute judge first of all i want to think mr kantor for his honesty in regard to clarifying that it was a teen or you know a very small amount to this far as that's concerned addressing some of the things that he had mentioned the he said the officer said the door was barred and and barricaded in the basement i think there's a law that doors have to open out so that doesn't make much sense that that would be the case and then there was the statement he made about the landlord information wouldn't necessarily been pivotal for the jury the jury was out a long time they got the case late the night before and they spent an entire day deliberating on it but yet as you look at this you're somewhat saying hey a lot of drug volume a lot of information here they spent an entire day trying to reach a resolution so i guess i think there must have been something going on in that jury room and i think the landlord the landlords information that i'm pretty sure he moved in in april that's contradictory to what rickards said could have tipped it the other way so i know i've got ten seconds here you are you are the last chacon and i would like the court to go over the record if they could i did get a chance to address the actual records to quote drug records and look at how deficient they appear to be and the arguments were made there the credibility of mr rickards testimony and the the security of the area and whether or not people could have come and gone at the time and who were these a vice million lead back to due course this is the last time i said as a judge so it's been a real honor and a privilege to do that and see in the back of the courtroom some of my former law clerks as well as my current clerks and judge shepherds and beings and i appreciate you all being here the whole thank you very much as we heard in the first case that the key is to have a good law clerks that fine by the needle in the haystack so this is my last so that's right could i have a certain well on my behalf and i suspect my calling from arkansas is behalf but he can speak for himself it's been an honor to serve with judge riley  he was my replacement when i took senior status in this court and you know you're getting old when your successor is going to walk off into the sunset a few days before you do perhaps but he's not only been an excellent judge he was the chief judge of this circuit and served on committees of the federal judiciary the advisory committee directly a small group with the chief justice of the united states and in between meetings think of one couple of times a year they administered the federal courts in the united states and they went through a period of retrenchment of flooring of money and all sorts of things that have a bearing on how well the court can function and on behalf of myself at least and i well let me just add that first of all i'm honored to participate in our court session this morning that is such a historically significant occasion as it marks or colleague judge rollins last arguments as a judge of this court i will say that it's my understanding that judge riley has not and will not technically retire or fully retire so there is precedent for judges who take senior inactive status to return and so i'm holding out  hope that that will be the case with judge riley but judge riley has been a friend a colleague he's one of the judges that welcome a to the court and has was my chief judge for the bulk of my years eleven years on the court of appeals and let our court with distinction with humor and i can say that  time that i perhaps made the mistake of thinking too highly of myself i could count on judge riley to to eliminate those thoughts and of course i've tried to do the same with him so thank you for your service and for your friendship i want to say you think i want to also add that judge riley hasn't done this by himself he has had a wonderful  help but he has had that help and we want to recognize her and one additional thing he started on this job few months miscreants flew two airplanes into a building in new york city and if you think that didn't throw the federal judiciary into a bit of a quandary and terms of travel and all sorts of things and so it was under a bit address that he was there and he held held up and held a soul together we all work together in that  thank you i don't want to thank you both for kind words that what i'm going to miss are the people and it's very hard to do that but i should recognize my secretary for my law practice christianize who's back there and she's she and i've been together now for over thirty years and everybody on the court knows when things happen correctly particularly and i was chief judge it was because of what chris did not what i what i did and i i got the credit but she did all the work though and then backed up by the law clerks for sixteen seventeen years so thank you all the law clerks careerists and the judges that have been great colleagues and very very dear friends so thank you with all that rambling