in evidence about the boosters who were doing stealing that he didn't know and he never met according to the prosecution witnesses about their drug problems which led to a closing argument that said convict him because he supplying the money for the drug dealers and gas when i came in after conviction so there would be willful blindness instruction itself was objected i think that's twelve forty four the judge stated what instruction he was going to give it twelve forty four and then seventeen thirty three gave a different instruction then he said he was going to give so he said i object i'm going to give it anyway your objections preserved and if you have to give one that one some because he said what he was going to give and then when he got to seventeen thirty three he gave a different instruction later on he didn't give a correct one but when he gave the correct one he didn't say this is correct that's wrong so the jury was like in the world walker case from this court  said to the jury finding inference that that there is that he had a strong belief and a high probability that  partners like this get to a chain of circumstantial evidence and in the first place it said finding inference and he look at jen wright a look at global of global attack and global tech just initially you know writing for all seem to be a lot of reasons why this defendant is going wore a out of his way to avoid you know you to maintain deniability or to avoid learning about the fact and then these goods are coming in and they have these branding stickers and they're coming into his warehouse in garbage bags in plastic bins and whatever and all those branding stickers have to be removed for the goods to be resold and then he gives brock crew i d s is one of the of the first level fencer all whatever he actually gives them a recording device and  prosecution bridges had only twenty percent with stickers on it and he had contractors who had contracts with kroger's costco reclamation any and there was no expert testimony nobody said well if you look at greatest aussie how different it is from what everybody agrees is a legitimate material the second thing as that they went rock's testimony of the goods that he alert that the boosters were addicts who had to get the next fix and that they were going to you know there was so if you were to get the next fix that they were willing to brocchini know about him and brock didn't say no he said i can't say that he did he knew about bridges but he did know about the others there was no question that he didn't know about the boosters because when they asked the government witnesses to say they did they wouldn't say and  and tester said he knew it was stolen goods well testers know bridge's knew it was stolen goods and cook sort of talks around it there's a conversation imputed to cook where she had to know it's stolen goods she's working there for eight years and daily these bags are coming in and then the i r s comes around and they have these conversations about you don't know we're selling to you don't know don't turn on me and  if he did which i don't think he did i say said he didn't he so entitled to a valid structure and he didn't get what his name because he didn't get one well did you ever did you ever object to the instruction that he was that was told at twelve forty four was correct the one that was given during the trial was not right was no objection to it slowly though i don't think that prior counsel objected to the contain and it didn't contain that in addition to which he can tell you what i think is the crude crucial safeguard which the court says struction negligence is absolutely not enough to prove  this but negligence is not it negligence is part of it but the point is that the defendant according to justice alito has to be shown to virtually know when the jury wasn't told that they were told they could infer they could told they could look at evidence but the objection as i understand it was not raised as to the content of that particular and that's correct and then the last piece and i don't want to say to rush rebuttal if that's acceptable to the court that the heat of passion raised by the closing argument where fourteen times in six pages they talk about hale supplying drug dealers with the money to run the god drug trade in gaston county actually through the disc open description of this conspiracy was explicitly testified to by bridges she talked about the boosters she talked about where they got it how they function but that's not admissible that doesn't that's not part of conspiracy it's not part of the conspiracy because whether or not they used the money for drugs or moonshine doesn't prove that they steal or don't steal it doesn't prove what he now disparity is a booster steals the drugs gives it to bridges bridget gives it to hail hail  argument you're making is that hale did know about his participation in the conspiracy but the conspiracy itself objectively clearly included the notion that where the money can goods where the goods came for our are conspiracy the nature of the conspiracy is on contested that it was a conspiracy that began with stealing goods from the general places santa sewing room ridges offensive selling them to halos of fans and selling the tests are now pale says i'm innocent that's ok argument but that does not go to the scope of the conspiracy which the government can argue and you were forced they argue that he did know what i'll say for a bum he was there was ample evidence that the jury could reasonably infer that mr hale was deliberately ignorant in other words he knew of facts that established that that would have told him that the goods were stolen and he was deliberately ignorant toward those facts in terms of the instruction the district court gave an instruction that adequately stated the controlling law this court does not require precision on you know it specific words and what the district court advised the parties that it would give was the gin right instruction which said it required that the jury find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware of facts that would establish that the goods were stolen and was deliberately indifferent to those facts to deliberately did not want to know them and there was nothing absolutely wrong and what about mr miller's distinction though that he's drawing between the first instruction in the second well this were all given to essentially the same time and there i don't i guess my issue or my concern is i don't think at any point the district court gave  erroneous instruction so just to say i did the two different been from your perspective not meaningfully at all the only difference i suppose i think what he is pointing to is that in one of the instructions and i want to  appendix i do yes i'm sorry pages seven seventeen thirty three to seventeen thirty four and the district court says that the jury must find that the defendant was subjectively aware of the high probability that the goods were stolen but purposely and here's the language that that i think that hails counsel is pointing to purposely avoided learning facts pointing to the fact that he was buying stolen goods well right but i mean at the end what that says is he knew facts that establish that the goods were stolen and then deliberately chose or or work to make sure that he did not appear to know those facts i don't think there  is the government believes and it's established that the defendant actually consented to the content of the gen right instruction it's the government's position that the instruction that was given was the general instruction and then there's no meaningful difference between the words that judge cogburn used in this case and the words that i think it was touch conrad used in the general case but even if the court were not to find waiver then we address plane air and you know even without the plane air or part of it this court would have to hold that the instruction did not adequately state the controlling law here there is no air and that's that's that's the government's point is there is no error at all because it adequately states controlling law but even if i think is argument is on the first one that argues in the takes a clause to suggest that you can and for them knowledge but he leaves out the media preceding clause that says you have to have a probability that he knew right a high probability that he knew and then that evidence exactly i mean i think if the court reads both instructions it's i hesitate to say it's too instructions it's a single instruction there are a couple of different there's one phrase i suppose that's in the second part of that but he always consistently says you have to find it beyond a reasonable doubt and it is not enough that you that he all should have known to say that it affected this defendant substantial rights when the evidence that he didn't know was overwhelming i do want to correct a couple of things that mr hale's counsel says in terms of the government's what the government presented the government never acknowledged or presented no and no witness ever said that hale didn't know what the witnesses said was bridges for example says i never told him about the booster so what we acknowledge through that evidence is we don't have direct evidence we have loads of circumstantial evidence but the government didn't get up and say we don't know and then it turns he says the receiving all kinds of playing one time when the supply was a faulty argument made to the jury about the boosters the fact is the only evidence about these goods came from bridges the source of them and she said they were stolen and they were stolen by boosters who sold them to them and she as of two thousand and ten bridges was ninety percent of the source of hail supply also in addition to the fact that it's just sort of part of the offense the drug the drug addicted boosters we also have  testimony from the law enforcement officer that he found out about the whole thing when the investigation was triggered because a drug investigator and a guest only a police department officer who investigates drug crime found that a bunch of his heroin addicts for shoplifting drugs that's how they were supplying so he went to jeremy williams who at that time was in the police department in the property crimes and said i want to disrupt this chain of money you know the the  route that my addicts are getting to get their drugs so it was just part of the story of the crime and the prosecutor did nothing wrong in arguing facts that have been admitted that were not objected to and they were properly admitted to the maker of the conspiracy it is part of the conspiracy it's it was the core part of the conspiracy in the issue only issue that hey you know it was trying to present as he could have been a legitimate operation and he really didn't know that they were stored right but he doesn't mind his participation in the conspiracy he denies his knowledge which of course is necessary right now in the willful blindness issue and that's that's his main issue as i understand and you know maybe lesser quality and everything in there they're big so blown retail value to stores and it's one of the things that keeps prices so it's  t you know the whole thing doesn't hinge on any intrinsic problem with the secondary or below retail market the whole thing hinges on the fact that the goods were stolen and he knew it exactly that's absolutely correct and you know not only when the investigation starts coming close he tells brock get rid of the goods get jesse out of the bank yes takes two hundred thousand dollars in cash out of his own bank but didn't see wife covers up his boat  all of that and all of that and he also gives him he advised brock even before that to record all of the because he was told there were time i'm going into business together he advises prox get everyone on on a recording saying that the goods aren't stolen and i don't want i don't think it should be ignored that this is a gentleman who has been prosecuted for this before and that prosecution was vacated our that conviction was vacated by this court which was appropriate but i think that he did have  exactly but one could say that if he could plead ignorance then he certainly could not now and we have much more evidence we presented the government did much more evidence of his willful blindness in this case this was not a and there was not make that judgment call even if the error was preserved it would be under an abuse of discretion standard of review it's not preserved but if it were this would still be a deferential standard of review and the district court in this case did not make an error there suggest that the government's case in this argument in this case is strong because we do have all of those different ways that we can or this court hands to affirm the district court's decision to give the willful blindness instruction as well as the content of that statement about some of the facts if this court does not have any other questions on the legal issues we would request that the court affirm the judgment of a district co you if the court please at seventeen thirty three the judge says when willful blindness the government can prove the defendant knew the goods had been stolen by a stablish saying the deliberately shielded himself from clear evidence of critical facts that were strong facts pointing to the fact that comes out of our cases probability right there that's true but the high probability that they have to find is not inferred they have to find as a fact that there's a high probability not infer that there's a high probability and they have to find is a fact rather than imprints the high probability and that the high probability is of the fact itself not  a fact pointing to the fact well and that's a song that is i think should never kind era angels are beginning to dance on the hill of the piano here because juries draw inferences all the time but the question that's not the own only question the question is what are they drawing an inference a balance they're drawing an inference about that there is a high probability that avoided white house saying that he took actions facts pointing to facts this is not an ordinary instruction this circles the hail the jury could find knowledge of male deliberately shielded himself from clear evidence of critical facts that were strongly suggested by the circumstances or if he purposely avoided learning the facts pointing to the fact that he was buying stolen goods so what you have is all kinds of references to the language in them in this which is a rare instruction is to give the jury precise guidance about what they need to do and as happened in the walker case when you get it wrong and you get it right which is what happened here because he got it wrong  and lined seventeen through twenty two when he got it right on the next page seventeen thirty four when you get it wrong you get it right you don't know what the jury did and they look to the judge to talum and there's another saying the judge did here that is also  look at these instructions as a whole what is the entirety of the struction convey and when judge name i read to you the entire sentence and i've read to you parse parts of the sentence and the entire structure it conveys to me negligence doesn't hack it this deliberate indifference deliberately shielding yourself from facts that in their totality suggest a very high probability that you knew absolutely knew those goods were stolen and proceed further part of the reason i think counsel didn't object to the content of that instruction was not through oversight or ineffectiveness counsel didn't object to the instruction because he didn't have a basis to jack to the instruction the instruction was given was correct and that's why there wasn't an objection big structure and didn't define should this is a rare instructions and i'm an ordinary want and it didn't define subjectively is through his eyes and that's one of the components and i was completely left out other things that you need to consider if you would please  cook who handle all the merchandise says it to forty four and to eighty four it doesn't look stone she says at two fourteen nineteen to forty four that eighty percent had no stickers on it she handle everything from everybody to legit guys as five percent they're coming in the same bags they're coming from the same woman they're coming in daily and twenty percent of them have stickers from stores different stores which instruct if you're not buying this at the store call this number now but this is all all right there and then what about all this business about getting rid of the goods and don't turn on me and at the end of the queue at the end when there's an investigation correct we only deal in cash we don't want why don't we deal in cash because we don't want to get rid of the records she did destroyed records after three years and they dealing cash because the flea market business is a cash business he looked at bonnie bridges and she had been in the market business for not five days twenty years two decades it is this may be cash but when bridges brought it in there hale could have given checks and sells a flea market she goes around and looks aha she's where she says she's going to be doing what she says she's going to do not experience business you know this is this is evidence from the prosecution about her as she admitted had been in the business twenty years as a government witness she said she never had any trouble during the twenty years and she bought and sold a flea markets so she except she testified explicitly categorically and clearly that the goods she took t hail were stolen she didn't say all of it she did say all of it because some of it she had fish that she got she got completely markets and some of she got from the bush who is in the business of that until she inhaled she was doing a small business and when she inhale linked up and hale created a demand for those goods selling them into florida that's when she started doing this booster business and she explained it in detail i i don't she didn't know what percentage of her stuff was his business and the one who person who did know the percentage of his business said most of it didn't come from our the government said most of it came from the legitimate sources and that's the government