authenticate the google exhibits your honor just about everything there was almost no testimony given regarding the processor system used to create these exhibit the action of photographs the foundational question to the witness stand is is this an accurate representation of whatever the object is he doesn't have to say well i know it was taken with the lake remember in this case is these exhibits are not photographs these are google earth generated computer software generates these documents these are data can produce a ball a computer now  but for something produced by computer such as this this is data being produced by a computer in a software program that can be played with and there was no testimony of the process that generates the image and that the irrelevant to the issue of whether it's an accurate representation of the city that it it's certainly not relevant your honor what it comes down to the issue of authentication girls to whether the data produced by the computer is is accurate or it might produce inconsistent results now when you go on google earth it doesn't bring up a photograph it's an interactive three d program that can be manipulated and use shift where it is depending on what angle you're looking at and that's the key distinction here your honor is that the way this is produced you need to have either someone who who was programmer or someone who works with the program on a regular basis and is from building with it who could testify as to how these exhibits were generated in that it's not simply a camera taking a photograph it's it's several satellites going over from different angles taking taking pictures of an area so they can build a three d graphic of an area and certainly what angle the camera is pointed when it gets the satellite image how they are blended together certainly it was relevant to whether the image that is produced is accurate or not or is going to produce a consistent result every time you enter that same information into google earth and the forger and the same question could be but question finally is to the witness does this representation with his by drawing by google or by photograph accurately represent the scene as you were acquainted with it and he said yes why did you go to the other issue in this case yes you are  the motion for me to follow op for bias sure this case really presents quite an amazing coincidence we have a juror who was called twice for federal jury service in san diego and both times coincidentally was in front of the same judge but even more coincidentally it's such an amazing coincidence that the defendant in both cases was the exact same defendant and that was mr nava in this case now this coincidence was such an amazing coincidence that a pet apparently led everyone involved including the judge to mis understand what the true facts wore in this case when the motion for a new trial was brought on the judge just dismissively denied the motion stating that because this juror happened to be called before him on quote some other case any of these folks now nobody nobody spoke up nobody affirmatively said yes the juror of course how to duty to say yes but i was seated as while i was not seated i was here on a well your honor he did have contact in the sense that he had been seated and was possibly going to be chosen as a juror for this individual who had introduced had been introduced by name had been told what the charge the trial is not as important because the juror actually was not selected to sit on the trial he would have been there for jury selection he was there for jury selection yes you are and that's the extent possible knowledge of this particular  extent is yes sure that's where he gathered the knowledge but of course what knowledge she gathered is what is important in the fact that this was the same exact offended and that he was charged with a thirteen twenty five good morning your honor samantha carr helen hall but on behalf of the united states and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the pro se motion for a new trial that the defendant filed on the date of the sentencing and that's for two separate reasons the the claim that the defendant presented in his motion and that that motion was included in our supplemental excerpts of record but there is nothing in that motion that identifies the contours of the claim that's presented on appeal here twenty that transcript page appears on one thirty eight and that transcript is of the juror in this case indicating to the district court quote i was selected this is my second time as a matter of fact in front of you judge last time i was excused there's nothing in that transcript portion itself that identifies that the juror had actually been part of the veneer for mr an office case so considering the context in which mr navas motion was raised he was represented by counsel he was not a pro se defendant at the time he had able counsel representing him through the sentencing phase none of whom there were four of them actually that had cycled through his his case none of them had seen fit to follow a motion for a new trial when the district court then received mr knob as filing he did not certainly could not identify a polo ball basis to further investigate or that would have triggered a duty to further investigate whether there was answer honestly immaterial question on voir dire there is no evidence on the record in this case that the juror failed to answer honestly a material question on board here the questions that were asked to appear on e r one thirty in one fifty two in the questions where does anyone know any of these folks and the juror in this question along with the very messy remainder of the pool also didn't raise their hands and so the attorney said no and the second question that was asked is now does anybody have any opinions about that at this time seeing no hands no neither response on this record shows that your fail to answer honestly that question because nothing in the record shows that that the juror recalled that he didn't recall that it was mr nava if he didn't know that it was a novel or it believed it was a different nala then certainly he did not fail to answer honestly immaterial question onboard gear and again this record is empty  any any evidence showing that the juror did have any if any basis to remember recall what he had participated in back in two thousand and twelve so on that record mr nava has failed on this appeal to shoulder his burden to show that mcdonough style bias applies for those reasons united states cements that the district court appropriately denied the motion to this mess now to the extent that there are any lingering questions about whether the record novice prior trial that would make no sense that he put in there for inmate nava arlo so that was that was enough couple of the fact that the judge should give it up a little construction and not hold the drafting against  that he had a good memory the fact that we could if the jury could remember that he was in a courtroom it was the same judge and not remember the he saw a defendant that was the same defend as in this case