coach kelly yes do we want to just take our break after two cases rather than after thirty dollars right of the technical difficulties that's an excellent idea judge erickson why don't we able to work well together you know this case got a little bit got a little tricky and if you look at the transcript of it being late and you can see that is testimony was not helpful to them in this case i went to mr reed to feel that he was further i wanted him to get d a fair trial and now today of course i want to make sure d that his issues are proper race for him he raises three main challenges in this case the sufficiency of the evidence to prove that here to convict him of the count convicted on he wanted a filed a motion for a new trial that you felt was not handled properly by the district court and then also the the appropriateness of the sentence which may in fact be the more interesting argument of the three here the conspiracy because he bases that most in the fact that we have cooperated witnesses that in his view were not credible mr job on gentle was the main target of this initial investigation d in this case we ended up becoming the government sort of main property witness in more than one case i mean several cases that wants this individual was a period quarter on a weekly basis in several cases which was known to everybody because meanwhile mr who was not a part of this conspiracy case but was housed at the same county jail and then sort of coming in as sort of a jailhouse informant sort of witness for the government they're all in that the same time and that mr responded to be highly suspicious because van at one time he knew the main perpetrator of this conspiracy mr klein from a janitor job that he had had and so while there's not a whole lot to get into here for purposes of your argument now i think i've put it all into the brief is position is that there just wasn't enough evidence here mostly because of the credibility d of the witnesses to really know her you know for the jury are going to backfire as to whether whether they're credible or not it really is  t i think what he is mostly concerned about here is sort of going on to the next issue which was the motion for a new trial he was unhappy with the way d some of the evidence can then look for a guard to say the handwritten note that was involved here testimony in general he felt that what it was it was d the d character attacks which i mean that's how all defendants probably feel at some point when you're on trial that they're coming at your character but in this position brasil made a statement on the record about the fact that it does not appears that there d are any people of african american background in the jury d on the jury panel but of course we were questioning directly on that issue it just on the panel that strict it is unfortunately and that's why i wrote the brief in the way i was talking about how it's maybe more likely to have more a american people on the jury d d if you are trying a case in minneapolis because it's different visions although there are some argument as to whether that's true or not i don't know that we can guarantee that at all but yeah it's a common occurrence although i will say  just that a jury trial there in saying that this year that we didn't go out way so in a we d we had a more diverse through but you know because we're short on time if you don't mind your honor i'd like to move to this issue three with regard to the sentence here mr reed has raised d an argument about the sentence in the sense that he i was very much concerned about why the conversion the drug version table treated the crack calculated in going through the guidelines when not accounting for the conversion table his guideline range would have been muscle or he would have come in in my opinion i think the criminal history category was still category five but he would have come in more like a level thirty two or as the c s i had as level thirty six category five brasil was kind enough to grasp one of his d objections with d regard to maintaining a stash house there was no evidence to show that my client was actually maintaining that residence so enhanced and didn't apply and we were grateful for that but it wasn't significant enough that changes in the way that i thought that the drug conversion table court disregard of that but didn't give us any real basis for just simply kind of jumped over it and said why just overrule your objections to it and i thought that it was sufficient isn't it isn't it true that we've said that the judge is under no  obligation to question the underlying science or the underlying of the sentencing guidelines or the basis for the guidelines i should say it's also true that that the sensing commission has gone before and by the congress or the approach to the guidelines is that you get their rejection of the beds and then you end up in a situation where you know the judge has to make all my going to vary because i think congress has got it was good am i going to other applied on with this conversion table and it was our position that based on the way the cases had come out with regard to meet the guidelines on crack versus our cocaine this seems to be sort of right in line with other policy disagreements that the courts have had fire to that but now in the context of the conversion table so while she may not be required your honor to do that it certainly appears to me that this absolutely was really kind of the same it's not enough i mean if if we were to ask for a report that issue a sentence that's been that's sufficient not too much we should have an explanation but my time just ran out so thank you very much i appreciate your arms like  group as a representation that many years from which the juries are selected that is not bigger or reasonable in relation to the percentage of distinctive group in the community and here and it in the defendant eileen he presented only information from the census and not information that would be helpful to the court relating that data to either the new year panel and its case or the your experience is this is do you agree that this is a common problem that that jury panels that come into the district in minnesota lack of minority representation representation of race ethnicity and other protected classes so i don't have any of the kind that would satisfy i mean granted because before up about my own experience i would disagree based on my own experience selection of jurors includes other types of lists including state id card list and butterfly from the list that may sweep up more individuals than voter registration lists and that's notable because this  connect his own experience and observation to a larger pattern in the district just how this works when you say the that it sounds like you say you start with a vote or registration lists and then maybe this particular motion that's correct your honor as i mentioned the district court and i did the defendant to raise his motion again and that could have been accomplished through the means  i'd like to just return to my previous point that the defendant motion was because of the way it's presented based entirely on its own subjective experience and observation three his trial and this court preceden testimony and the credibility of any operating witness especially when what the nation with the government doing what there are any further questions from the court i will conclude my