air down here well what's significant should we give to the fact that we correct me if i'm wrong that the border agent took twelve seconds to see that there was something wrong with the candy going to the right or no answer to it is that is that correct or deliberate indifference be based on the totality of the circumstances that maybe that to the to the untrained eye the bags themselves aren't so different that someone would pick up on it but in this case even from the very beginning we have the other gentleman who received the call initially who said you know i'm not going to i'm not going to take that particular job that particular transportation and yet in this case we have you know your client received call and apparently spoke to this person on the other side some six times or more without learning in a name or i mean can it be that it's a totality of the circumstances that we reach a critical mass where we say well now he's being deliberately indifferent to what is staring him in the face or ordered or is that only actual knowledge well the answer there's several answers your question if you look at the totality of the circumstances you look at all the evidence and you can decide whether or not the the evidence suggests two things that there was something that put the defendant on actual notice that the of us of the fact that he's supposed to know in order to be guilty under the statute that fact here is that there were drugs in these bags not just that there might be something weird about these bags but that there were actually likely drugs in the evidence also has to support a reason the reason that the defendant chose to do something or not to do something it was because that he knew that if you did or if you acted otherwise he would learn the thing he didn't want to know right and so the thing that the most important part about this case and the testimony that you mentioned is that his distraught of the fellow crosser did say that he decided not to accept this job but he didn't say he decided to not to accept it because he was suspicious or that he thought anything was off about it to the contrary he said it is not unusual for somebody who sits around at the plus seat and waits for crossing jobs to have their number spread out around the around the town and to get calls from people who they don't know now it is true that there were several calls i don't think it was six judging the heart of think it was maybe three or four over the next couple days but the fact that there were additional calls simply raises the binary question either he was either later after the initial conversation where he indicated to strada that he believed that he had accepted a job to cross candies he later talked to the unknown man and they de told that this was going into fries or he simply didn't know i mean that and that the duration of the calls he could have been on hold for all we know he could have called the unknown man and somebody said hey wait i'll go get i'll go get him and we don't bridge day to day and and there also was the testimony you know in his interrogation he made quite clear from the very beginning that that money was being used to save for a new permanent resident card infected the actual agent who recognized the drugs in the bags is the same agent who had twice before reminded him you need to get a new permanent resident card and the record reflects that it's several hundred dollars going to get the car that day  carry that i just i was wondering when i read the record and it's not argued but if assuming that that's the purpose that he had the money he's carrying it on his person if he's saving it up to get a renewal of the card that may make sense but why would carry it on himself judging the heart i'm pleading ignorance on this but i don't know if you can actually go and get a new permanent resident card at the bridge i would doubt that you're able to do that there i think there probably be another office that you have to go to in order to apply to get a permanent resident card but the reason why it's perfectly reasonable for him to have that amount of money he had on him is that there's no evidence in the record he has a bank account or it and cruise adore who had l p r status would never had any criminal history in his life and who was recently married to a state probation officer and had kids with her to decide to risk everything for four still have time at absolutely that my colleagues may have other questions about their butt but i certainly want to hear your argument about why even assuming you're right there isn't substantial evidence of actual knowledge in the records so the  so i don't mean to interrupt you but it sounds like that line of argument goes to his objective knowledge or is it his if he should you should have known something was up but what about the second part of the deliberate ignorance trigger which is i understand it is that there be evidence of a purposeful contrivance to avoid learning of the illegal some kind of sure you know i just you know willfully blind yourself to what's actually going on here and you need to have a right to get this conduct would that exclude upon being apprehended or questioned by law enforcement either denying knowledge or lying about it once a person is caught stands argument that the he was telling the truth and deny but a person who's confronted by law enforcement could deny knowledge or outright lie about it is that also within the realm of this purposeful contrivance or it does it takes some other affirmative act in  you agree with imposing counsel that in the harmless error analysis we are not allowed to resolve the evidence in favor of the government that there's a different burden so to speak on what is the burden we have the it is it is so that if we assume let's say with let's let's use a hypothetical we find that there was error in the instruction is that a problem for the harmless error analysis what opposing counsel said that the prosecutor was emphasizing the deliberate