ruling on the motion at the end of the government's case and then when it issued its final rule twenty nine decision and this is that exit of record one ninety eight and all referred to the  government's evidence and the district never rule so that is entitled to a colorful claim under saddle but what the district court did is they ruled on a rule twenty nine that was the minute after all the evidence was presented which includes  ruled on a rule twenty nine that it should rule twenty nine compels that when a district court reserves ruling at the end of the government's case in chief that you're entitled to have the district court rely on just the evidence that was presented at the time it reserved so michigan are had a right to this determination it hasn't been made so she has presented a i anything and that's really the course in order of how to reconcile and start chasing and that's the way to do it in stark easy and in the cases that relied upon the district courts and even richards and if we want to take it a step further this court getting into the whether or not it had jurisdiction to appeal so it is clear in that decision that the role the judgment of a clear in richardson the judgment of acquittal was the night in that case and it's clear that the judgment of acquittal was not ruled on it's clear in this case that the judgment of acquittal based on the evidence only on the government's case in ch almost backwards in a weird sort of a way because we seem to be amoun psyches right after a trial judge grants a new trial and that claim is prohibited because it's not culpable after richardson because and what i'm arguing the way to reconcile zotto in that case is judge takes the get the it understood mission they have an obligation to review just that evidence and the district court didn't in this case and they did not reach a verdict ruled on the question of fish here the evidence and therefore double jeopardy and you're looking at it i believe that we're we're concerned with the district court of appeals to the to the  to apply that to this situation has three answers first of all inside zero itself it says the only real difference between the situation in zotto in this situation  lately ultimate rolling on the merits minor was really not a couple jeopardy roaming is what you're saying correct and forty eight seven as a mature person you come up with interesting person little unclear what she's basing that on and we would argue that appellant argument a few moments ago to this court that she was basing it on the entirety of the trial is not accurate either to really that's exactly the case here there was no final judgment in this case jeopardy never terminated and in you as a defense counsel  you your honour's are exhibits three four seven eight nine which depicted the first which were admitted into to trial these exhibits to connect what the material witness mr maria  stifling compartment she testified she was to be transported from if you want to although we have two thousand value of why did three to four hours under those conditions it defies belief that the registered owner the driver of that car would going back to the jurisdiction question the logic of the distinction between upon motion and a ruled upon rule twenty nine i submit is because everyone is entitled to at least in on the rule determination on a case in this summary what do you do with this language that double jeopardy principles underlying our rule and subtle are no different  but i'm talking about the summer eighth if he's giving at the end the double jeopardy principles underlying our rule that are no different when the appellate court is the district court as it was here that that has to do with there's problems was i don't but just trying to read a consistent way it is not overruled by other authority and this is the best i've come up but i don't think i created these problems i'm just trying to interpret time when i want to just point to specific acts to record pages real briefly we did make the motion for rule twenty nine on exit of record stage one thirty seven the district court did not make a ruling and we pointed that out to the district cour t at the motion in the post trial motion hearing at the beginning the hearing at page one ninety five we noted to the just great you haven't ruled on this and i'd like to conclude the with the district court's ruling in this is on page one ninety eight your argument denied and on the facts there's ample fast and all over to refer to the entire trial transcript is to make both counts to the jury and that's what the court did so the court denies the request for rule twenty nine then also denies the request for double jeopardy so it is clear that the court relied on the entire trial thank you and hopefully i'll be able to keep my minutes from my neck our next hour or you can pick up