good morning all this morning is the united states versus pressure mr gor category six or guideline range of life the court since then but like a person you want to relate several grounds for appeal in the snapped the st round of appeal that we've been acquitted is that there was not enough evidence in order to support a conviction for count one of a superseding indictment the reason for this is because that there was evidence of multiple conspiracies that were presented in that there was insufficient evidence to prove the conspiracy for drugs in the southern difference of a conspiracy beyond his own individual teeling i mean a date they think it's certainly  in the conspiracy i would say that that that there isn't there that those things do provide those things do provide some evidence that they have they provide a tad bit of evidence but the overwhelming majority of what happened in this case happened in kentucky when the witnesses came in they spoke they spoke about it in texas when the witnesses came and talked to the court they talked about kentucky it is radical that there was evidence of a murder that happened and this radical that there was information about mr brass or driving to having other individuals drive to texas and bring drugs from texas to where they were but the overwhelming content so so there was information that showed that there was that there might have been a conspiracy that might offend from kentucky and there was information that showed that the information that the government presented in trial did not end to that rush or was sufficient to indicate that pressure was part of a conspiracy in the southern just of indiana but rather that there might have been a conspiracy that he was involved in in the louisville kentucky area produce tribute that to the southern district indiana but there was not enough information and not enough evidence to show that pressure was involved and the southern district of indiana conspiracy now the government's indicated that there is a hub and spoke conspiracy here but in order for there to be a hub and spoke conspiracy to has to be a brick and we know that the people that form the spokes have to know up each other and they have to do something in furtherance of the greater argument making i think you briefings very good and very clear on that could i mindful of the time that you have can i take you to one of the other arguments you you advance your brief would you mind and that's the batson issue  the point that i understand you're making there is that the trial of the trial record here simply contains you know no finding by the district court in response to the strike of the one female african american jury juror and the the point or perspective journ i think the point that you're making and correct me if i'm wrong is that under the bats a different race that had the same circumstances and then the court is supposed to make a finding after all that and that's and that's your point right at the trial record here the not the appellate briefs there's a there's a and a race most of the questioning and a rule of the defense motion of course to just qualify mr and for cause even if the government did not argue below that mr from other jurors with respect to family drug convictions one can judge pratt necessarily aware of the difference i believe that i believe  free from race strikes that are based on race that could be based on race that the purpose of all that is that that you go on the back the purpose of it is that that one party does what the party gives that reason that the no other party gives a race neutral reason and then ultimately the judge decides so it's our position that what the court is ultimately supposed to do is is up for a offered ultimate final rule even if sentencing memorandum well i believe that i believe that there were things that were said in a sentencing memorandum that unfortunately are regrettable but i believe that it's that it's alternately a matter  it if you want and i believe that in this intuition that did not happen properly as the judge did not give him a chance to to fight those convictions the and then it's in order to i thought it does not created for you is he he filed the document right in the in the district court document eight hundred and thirty six that in no uncertain terms it mit's the two thousand felony conviction or is no doubt that's what he's talking about he actually references the jefferson circuit court case when it was captured and what its case number was all of that and refers to it as a conviction and then on top of that if memory serves the government came in with a certificate of conviction right not not some kind of flimsy proof or anything  pretty significant document and it aligns entirely with what's in the defendant's own own filing so i don't know i don't know if he waived it or not but i don't i just don't understand how there could possibly be any merit to a challenge to the two thousand conviction in light of what's in the record here well the the things that the things that were filed and in the district court are credible but my but that is why there is why there is why i conviction that being i believe that the two thousand and thirty two cases there were three cases there and all three of those cases were found guilty on the same day and there was not enough of an analysis as to whether or not there was a separate and distinct incidents the two thousand conviction and what happened to cause that to be found to be true is incredible but when you get to the but it is the automatic life would not i have about forty seconds left are there any other questions that i have before rebuttal barely not thank you to well then i will reserve the rest of the time for a bottle thank you judge just a place of court brian writes for the united states i hope to address all three issues raised here by mr pressure but i want to jump in on the bats and claim and answer judge sweaters scottish questions i think i'd like to make at least three points st of all the district court did make  finding that there was a race neutral reason as to both the stricken jurors i would cite the court two documents a twenty eight dollars page twelve dollars thirteen cents judge pratt said that the prior drug offenses be it of the juror or the jurors relative w race neutral reason and that's supported by the court's precedents point to the government did offer a race neutral contemporaneous race neutral reason for the strikes of those jurors i point the court to the transcript pages twenty  twenty four that the government has never changed its reasoning for the strikes both at the district court level and on appeal all our reason for the strike is race or is prior drug offenses of those prospective jurors now so that was going to be my rd point so st of all legally the government is required to explain its reasons for strikes nothing requires the government to require it to explain its reasons for non strikes now legal requirement nd i think as your honor pointed out the judge pratt had the evidence and the evidence is clear from the record the reason mr m was not stricken is because his question his answers to mr grafters question not the government's questioning from mr brash questioning is that he had and it's hip and to put the two drugs to drug dealers he disowned his brother he was afraid of reprisals to himself and his parents after his brother's dr suggest that's what the district court would rely upon as a race neutral explanation but i can't find anywhere in the it in the trial transcript where that explanation was offered ok is that is that the have i read the record correctly that is correct your honor ok ok and that's not of legal consequence in your view so i think it has some relevance but i don't i wouldn't say legal consequence in dispositive as to this claim that's and gets at whether the reasons for these strikes or discriminatory are not the reasons the looking at and whether that reason was equally applied to strikes and on strikes is a factor that can be weighed to consider whether the strikes or discriminatory but it's not in and of itself disp couple reasons st again the government is required to explain its strikes it's not required to explain it's not on strikes it is better if we had met preferably we would explain everything that occurred but we are required to explain our strikes and mr pressure has not how i understand that but it it definitely becomes comparative right when a defendant is arguing that the reason for one strike is pretextual that it just inherently mean you've done this enough to know that it becomes a comparative analysis specifically i guess for the st thing i would have i would like to make two points that st i think the problem with that is mr pressure i don't think is hardly even raising  think that's what he's getting at but the government used this reasoning to strike to white jurors and prospective jurors and to black prospective jurors so the government broadly applied it equally perhaps the lack of an explanation for the non might have more weight if the government had used this rational to strike to african american veneer and then not and then struck no white veneer and kept the one why then maybe you're getting closer though i still don't think there's a legal requirement do want to step back and if we could think about this as a lecture what's on the side of discriminatory not discriminatory so i'm not nondiscriminatory the government offered a i think clearly valid race neutral reason i mean  understand there's a question about pretext but everyone agrees that in a drug case striking someone with a prior drug offense is going to be a generally a race neutral reason that's one to the government apply that to both black and white  people three the government did not use all of its peremptory strikes for the government or one after the government did not strike one african american venir person fifty one african american veneer person made it on to the jury on the other side of the ledger i think we have nothing but the government could have explained one factor better and i don't think that gets mr prasher to a valid batson claim i don't think that's sufficient to show that the district court clearly erred when it found that the strikes the two strikes the government made were nondiscriminatory and again i do want to put all that said preferably the government would explain the non strike but it's not a legal requirement and it is not sufficient and at least in this case to show purpose that the two strikes the government with bad if there are no further batson questions i would just like to move on quickly to a fifty one  judge or rather i think you hit the nail on the head mr brasher affectively not actively he did admit to the convictions we're talking about in his sentencing memorandums if that's not enough surely the certified convictions showing the matching name date of birth social security number and the city where mr brashear live is enough to rebut any potential question of prejudice as to the age fifty one's i think were left at this point and we have no argument bar wild speculation that mr brash or didn't commit those crimes and this court has said that's simply insufficient so there's there's no prejudice as as t if there are no questions there i would like to move on to the sufficiency i think there's two broad points here st why mr pressure was spoken the spokesman connected to the room connected the spokes and into why being held the court in indiana was reasonably foreseeable so st of all on the hub and spoke mr brasher has admitted that he was in a conspiracy with shelton so the only question is whether he connects two other spokes this court requires two things mr brush knowledge of other spokes and take some act in furtherance of the broader conspiracy he discussed the other spokes with shelton he obtained drugs as judge wrote reported out for the conspiracy at large which is essentially the par example of working for the conspiracy at large i think that falls easily neatly within what hub and spoke conspiracy is that lee was point to whether indiana was reasonably foreseeable to mr brasher it is for a number of reasons st would start with mr brush or had actual knowledge that this was an interstate conspiracy he obtained drugs from out of state so this is not a case where the defendant can say he was blindsided he can find all of his dealing to one specific location he in fact did not that leaves indiana mr brush or entered a drug conspiracy with an indiana resident mr martin he obtained drugs that were processed by mr ortiz in indiana during the course of the conspiracy he traveled to indiana for possibly not for drugs but he still traveled to the district at that point in time and underlying or overarching all of this is the proximity of the little mr brasher conspiracy in the local metropolitan area that extends into the southern district of indiana there's no reason this court needs to deal with the outer barriers of proximity and what's reasonably foreseeable but if one enters into a large scale dru conspiracy in a metropolitan area surely surely it's reasonably foreseeable that that drug conspiracy will extend to the whole metropolitan area if there are no further questions the government to be happy to rest on us for even ask was that the government does not have a good government has to go over their strikes but they don't have to go over the non stress and i respectfully disagree our it's our position that when there is a question about windows a question about if race was used and if there is a so there's a similar person of a different race that did not get the same treatment as a person who was struck then i do believe that in that situation the government should give the government has a duty to explain explain their non strikes and explain explain what they did and what it what they did to who and why i'm just a garden is sad because i think failed to it didn't make it to the jury i understand your point about what the government should have done right acknowledges that but the very day that comparing or that you're focusing on was actually struck by the there when you're dealing with our constitutional guarantee it's our position that the government who are the government the same government who is trying to put a person in prison and take away their freedom in this situation for life thank you government is should be held to standard with regards to that and make sure that that they do everything that is that is correct now going to be going to the church of the conspiracy issue which is just briefly there is there this argument is a hub and spoke argument fails on the spokes because the spokes have to know about each other and there's very little information that said say that spokes knew about each other  it's true that there is information in the record that brasher and shelton talked about talked about and spoke but that was only between brasher and shelton that was done with regards to the rich or the greater conspiracy and all of the spokes themselves and if kentucky when there were some of their doors portion of the agreements and the deals that were made happened in the state of kentucky and so then that's where that's why we're explaining that there was not enough in order to charge pressure in the southern