mr dancy runners i'd like to reserve a few minutes for the like to address two main issues for the course of twenty first being the four a four b evidence and the second  be used to make methamphetamine in order for such evidence to be presented or steve indictment been charged ecstasy so in order to allow evidence to be introduced for that purpose under for methamphetamine there's been a number of cases in the circuit in other circuits that have dealt with this issue of of a what is a logical connection specifically they feel with cases and in this case we're talking about two different pills were going to be used for an illegal purpose that doesn't mean that you are aware and are familiar with the process of making methamphetamine well that's all for the fact that he said he knew that they were going to be caught but i'm going to get to that that question of what other evidence there might be introduced you know on this on this question of knowledge but i'm talking now about the question of whether they actually see prove should have been admissible and the cases are pretty clear i for example in martinez the court noted that the prior sale of heroin does not prove that a defendant knows how to prepare crack cocaine or testimony of the witness he told me he told me i sell it for i buy four thousand a cased so i call him how much you sell it for he said i'll sell it for a thousand one hundred or thirteen hundred and i told him how much the mexicans buy i told him how much do the mexicans buy it from you so he said they buy from me for approximately thirteen fourteen hundred and then they sell it for the higher price and they make drugs out of the mexicans after they could make it ready for illegal drugs they sell it for a higher price that's what he told me  he acknowledged under cross examination that he originally lied to the police when he was questioned and said that the pills were really herbalife that was what was in the boxes that wasn't illegal and illegal substance then when he entered his plea of guilty before the court he told the district judge that he did not know that there were pills in the box and he did not know that they were used to making meth and phemie need to add to the judge repeatedly and then finally the third mention of the word black in the government says well that's really i did die and therefore the defendant knew about the process of making methamphetamine but if you actually look at exhibit fifty that he understood the processes of making methamphetamine that is that the reference to black being i dine i done being a chemical used in that process so that that transcript does not support the argument that he knew sold you can aid and abet the sale of something that didn't occur you don't have a principle doing it so you can have an eight and eight and of that of out of of of a crime and the question becomes can you have a conspiracy a navette i don't believe you and i'm sorry that i don't you don't have to show that manufacturing occurred you don't have to show or identify the if there was no if there was no manufacturing that was ever done then you can you know that's something that was never done and so the question is whether you can conspire to aid the best something that never happened and i don't believe you can unless you knew about a conspiracy to manufacture the drugs that has some third parties manufacturing the methamphetamine and it doesn't appear you can i distillery in a question was whether they could be prosecuted for conspiring to violate the revenue laws which some other party was doing and and if they did know about the violation of the revenue laws that some other party was doing the good morning you're honest peterson and it's on behalf of the united states after what i have the problem i have with your case first of all i think of her for me decision was wrong secondly i'm not sure it was harmless with regards to the let me just for a for be u particular drugs the government's position with regards to the evidence was to show the underlying activity showing this and you may transaction similar to the transaction that took place three weeks later that's great but you're that that's what the and that's the way the indictment is written in addition that's really the conspiracy of that or not that is the substance of count reads as well that's what the that's what the government has to prove and that's what the government attempted to to show defendant's knowledge with regards to this particular type of evidence the manner in which he acted right before that m d m a transaction was similar to the the manner in which he acted right before that to the federal transaction the fact that how does that show that he knew about the manufacture that was a precursor chemical your honor if it helps with it helps to show the knowledge because it helps to show one that going to be used for an illegal purpose and the government needed to show that that extra element in this particular case and the court by allow based on the government's requests to provide this type of evidence i just have a hard time equating would be a precursor to methamphetamine manufacture right how does the sale of that's history have anything to do with the knowledge that it would be a precursor to the manufacture of methamphetamine again you're i think it's not instruction your honor focused the jury on this particular type of evidence is only going to one particular element which was the knowledge which was the key element in the case which was a key element in the case which the government had other types of evidence and it suggests that that a legitimate transaction by price but i mean you could substitute marijuana you can substitute any finished product if you will and your argument is it doesn't make any difference you don't have to prove that he he used merchandise as a code work first to the bedroom with the with the conversation that struck brought up with tony when and where they're talking about black or crystal which was another precursor chemical used in  manufacture methamphetamine iodide which there was testimony to that effect by agent clamor that those two terms are often used to describe i don't but you must admit that the defendant seemed to be saying in a conversation i don't know what you're talking about well your honor we only both ways well i know i'm not i'm not trying to have it both ways on it because i do believe that even taking the the for for be evidence even taking one or possibly two of those cooperate  to the evidence that that the government lost out on was due to some unfortunate incident over the week over the over the weekend before trial where that particular witness decided not to for whatever reason decided not to testify now the district court declined to impose a concurrent sentence and had the opportunity to do so are consecutive sentences and decided not to do so on the opposite end in this particular case the court decided to do so whether or not she abused  discretion by doing so the government would argue that that wasn't the case that she was legally provided this opportunity and chose to do so thank you counsel if you can respond will be necessary to go over stuff you've already told us if you have a new way to work on the for of all of the evidence i think the government's argument is essentially and the argument about the coded language etc that goes to the question of whether he knew what he was doing was illegal it doesn't go to the question of whether he had knowledge that the pills would be used to make methamphetamine does he have to show knowledge the thing with the pill to be used to make methamphetamine or just a controlled substance well the way it's charge is that he in the way the occurred what transpired it goes to whether or not he had the knowledge if this stuff was going to be used to make meth i don't see how they could say it's harmless if they referred in closing argument in their own three front page twenty eight they say knowledge is the quote case talks about when you have a in one count the manufacture of in that case cocaine and the second count charging possession of the chemicals used to make cocaine the court saying you need to strike the account  manufacture of cocaine because congress recognized that the possession of the chemicals was less serious than the manufacture and so if you if you don't and with that recognition the cordon perowne struck the  based on the fact that our case was different because it had two objects but if the first object was to be stricken which i believe it should have been then it it if you were left with object two and the substantive count conspiracy