exception to that counting the district court i'm sorry the jury rather heard evidence of the defendant relationship between mr garner and says distributor  tape or testified at the trial amounts that were involved here were significant amounts over a very short period of time we had kilograms quantities of cocaine being exchanged between the two the frequen what it is what evidence it is there is that this was something more than purchases and sales which i gather is not enough under our law at least under under rock and i just purchases and sales i assume big ones little ones that make the fact that it's big may be background point towards a conspiracy but that alone isn't enough is it i mean it is just the purchase and sale that isn't enough and if that's right what is it here  meant to protect the transfer re from the severe liabilities that are intended just for the transfer orders but here we have work to transfer or as we have a distributor and we have a dealer we have the we have to take over the distributor we've got burners of the dealer and the the conspiracy and i didn't know anybody else i don't care if not they didn't care what i did with it i don't care where they got it from so there was no dependence there was no mutual dependence in the sense that what we have here is mr gardner who was buying only from mr potato gave her on two different occasions a significant amount of money five thousand dollars on each of two occasions the implication i have in as was argued to the jury here that that would be continuation of the relationship that mr  staggering amounts of money the notion that you talk about five thousand dollars in this context as being huge strikes me as a little odd and  you're suggesting that that the not a huge amount that five thousand dollars in the context of the amount of money that you're talking about in these transactions is not huge that's what i'm suggesting is maybe i also i thought it was also in a bit explained by the fact that he was trying to get mr partygoer not to not to implicate n b c it may have been a payoff or something else but it might not necessarily part of the drug transaction asked how much that was a different analysis the jury was conducting the jury at the initial point with that was there a conspiracy and they found yes there was despite having given the buyer seller exception instructions on the record at eight  also can't conclude that they made any conclusion that the next two buys didn't happen all we know is that they came to a quantity amount of less than five hundred grams drawing the the looking at the evidence and drawing all inf for here but it's but you're not arguing that that an amount less than five hundred grams could not be a distribution quantity i mean four hundred and ninety nine grams is well over any distribution i'm i'm interrupting because i'm just trying to make sure i understand your argument and in the application of rock but no it's not just the quantity they're relying on they're relying on evidence of the quantity evidence of three transactions which is far as i can see it's not correct to say that we can only look at the st transaction you have to look at all three because the jury was presented with that evidence and in no way suggested it wasn't binding three transactions in addition there is this payment of bail money which is evidence of mutual dependence of the two mr garner and mr pacheco and then there are other other evidence as well but tell me why looking at all that the jury wasn't entitled d having been instructed that without more the mere existence of a buyer seller relationship is insufficient to establish membership in a conspiracy why wasn't it entitled to make a judgment that this was a conspiracy  government bail money and it's obvious that he gave the bail money because he wanted to continue the business that's not what that's not will protect protect with divided dave in the money he says the only gardner according to the government was a drug dealer and he didn't want to check oh hell you have to the government that has nothing to do the no imprint that he thought he was going to continue to purchase the seven s and there was a drug dealer he didn't give garner his new number get one because the five he would get a new number every week he never gave it to him he would give his real customers the ones that were that he could start with he would give them their own phone he never gave that to garner so all of those facts i think and finally he was those tales of presence and so what we're left with here is the simply the quantity of drugs and yet the fury finding primitive and other cases brock in this circuit polgar on the other circuit there was a relationship there for twelve years in that case but that's not enough now wasn't there i think it i read that in the government's brief that there was argument made at trial by the sales you know the testimony on the stand of the cooperate or did seem to catch from any interest in what happened after the sale took place just because i don't think that that matters just like m