that that we that the disregarded erred in considering her testimony out of bounds prior to the start of the indictment period and if that's your argument what give me some support authority for that that is she did testify that however she was not sure about the amounts or the hears she basically just gave generalities the including a minute rather specifically that we're given to him monthly trips to texas to to purchase drugs to bring back her distribution the testimony that was given was not collaborate in fact it was not in and collaborated in terms of what was  her testimony showed the defendant sold her distribution quantities of methamphetamine on a weekly basis for months leading up to when she became a c i after she herself was busted she in turn distributed these quantities to other and others and used them chester some unknown individual who is his reliable source in texas and then law enforcement tracked him going to texas in november two thousand and seventeen and returning and with large quantities of actual methamphetamine and cocaine that were expertly hidden in a cooler and in prison meat which of those facts corroborated what mr burns said about her pre confidential informant involvement in the conspiracy other and other evidence of the conspiracy in this court is touched on that mr burns testified to an ongoing methamphetamine distribution relationship with the defendant before august st two thousand and seventeen she estimated leading up to when she was busted in two thousand and seventeen i don't believe there was a specific question asking did this happen in july it was her conduct and her regular conduct that she talked about once a week until she was busted so i don't think there was a specific question regarding was this in july i want to note that the jury was instructed in collimator instruction to you as to the meaning of on or about and that it sufficient that the case established beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense was committed on a date reasonably near the alleged dates in the indictment this can go to some period of or july st two thousand and seventeen and the instruction is right in line with this court's piece on what are about means but when states she also testified about observing other individuals purchasing methamphetamine from the defendant and mr burns to confirm that the met had to have an opinion and this perhaps goes goes to the question about july she confirmed that the methamphetamine she herself was caught selling that to a different confidential informant did come from the defendant that is not page one hundred and fifty six of the trial transcript and then of course the huge quantities of methamphetamine that the defendant and cocaine that the defendant was caught with in november two thousand and seventeen are most certainly distribution parties and the jury was instructed and i believe it was final instruction fifteen that  individual or individuals in texas from whom the defendant routinely source is methamphetamine hats or the defendant at a heart of a conspiracy in grafton north dakota this is not the kind of case where the facts makes clear that the defense counsel received the transcript in question had a conversation with the united states reaching an agreement related to exhibit five and the related transcript of brown harris and that agreement in writing and at the pretrial conference again confirms that agreement by informing the court she wanted the transcript limited to the actual by itself not the entirety of the recording setting up the control i am decreasing at the end of the controlled by there after specific course of action that she specifically approved and on that record any error related to the transcript was invited and specifically the things that defense counsel requested that the district court then accommodate during trial and final instructions were reviewed many times during trial to request some kind of an instruction related to transcripts but defense counsel did not do that when the district court ruled that the united states couldn't use the transcript in there was no objection to that rule and instead defense counsel asked for extra time to prepare for closing argument and received an extra night to prepare and defense counsel wanted the original exhibit five which had simultaneous transcript playing along with the audio removed from the record and replaced with a new exhibit five that had no transcript with that that was done just record accommodated every request of defense counsel related to this issue and for that reason there is no reversible er predominately in our brief on the invited error issue is the campbell case and that of course involves a guidelines issue which is not not what we're necessarily dealing with in this case here we have a clear objection  there was not an objection when the exhibit was offered when the jury left the room and the parties were discussing this issue because it was core quality and that the trial judge hadn't even seen there was a transcript it was so small and for the club jurors also couldn't see that there was a she had never seen a transcript and i did the transcript said well the record is clear that the transcript was provided through trial referenced in the united states agreements affirmed by defense counsel and specifically referenced by defense counsel to pretrial conference and she wanted the transcript limited so it's and then there after just by this very late objection the defend the district court then did everything that depends counsel asked related to this issue this is simply not reversible  under any standard of review and securely under a plain error review i didn't see a case cited where to make it in independence brief lining where this would be where the facts of what happened here what would satisfy being a plain air but even cell there's no effect on substantial rights here where there was respecting with respect to the count of conviction at issue  six the th of the control by is that there is a large amount of evidence supporting that conviction and the other distribution convictions and of course the possession conviction and nor would the facts of this case conference there's a single viewing of the transcript of lettering so small a chair could see it and the trial judge himself spending his own screen misted until part way through moreover defense counsel identified at trial and on appeal only a single allegedly material error and argued that error to the jury urging the jury to go listen to the audio with themselves the jury did not receive a copy of this transcript and everything as i've already outlined that defense counsel asked the court to do with regard to the transcript the court did the facts here even if there was a plain error that affects a substantial rights which we do not concede any of those points the facts you do not warrant correcting  two and allegedly incorrect transcripts for these reasons the united states urges the court to affirm the judgment of the district court on all grounds and if there's nothing further a little the rest of my time thank you very much