Legal Case Summary

. But it has the sense that the low end would your client be released from prison. He could very well be yes. I won't address that in the long term. Is that right? I may be remembering the wrong case, but I thought we're talking tends to serve because it's fell in imposition. The guy has a record. Is that right? That is correct, Your Honor. But under Amelene, we're not just looking at the classic Blakely situation where Amelene's not final yet. The mandate has an issued. It may be subject to an unbunk. Yes, talk and understand that your man fan. I'm sorry, let's talk about Booker Fan Fan. Under Fan Fan, your remedial sentencing, right, but Justice Breyer said, we all know we have to follow that, right? Yes, exactly. So following that Justice Breyer said for us, in light of the entire decision in Booker Fan Fan, the reasoning of Amelene is really what I'm addressing, not the presidential value of that case. Amelene says not only that cases have to be sent back for recentencing where district courts did rely on factors that weren't embraced by a jury's verdict, but also in light of Booker Fan Fan, a district court can now consider grounds for departure. And it seems to me that's what Judge Dabriety was really looking at. I have no problem with that

. I was just wondering about whether the fellow is entitled to get out right now. No, I don't think so, Your Honor. I'd like to say yes, but based on how long this case has been around, I don't think in light of his criminal record, it's going to go that low in the sentencing range. That goes very well. The first is that whether this case is a case that needs to wait for Amelene to be final before we would remand or whether in light of the district court statements and other issues in the record, his pre-conviction, rehabilitation, for example, we should do a castor remand now. You Honor, because of the fact that we know the base has been enhanced by four levels that shouldn't have been applied, we already know a sentencing remand is required. So therefore, I believe, yes, the court can send this back now, even before Amelene is final. Even without Amelene sentencing, resentencing is required in this case. I submit to you that the only thing that Amelene may clarify is if clear error review is the standard that we're applying here, does Mr. Bell lose on that ground? Well, no, not at all. What were the, do you recall exactly where, or what the judge said, what his words were, where he basically said, gee, I wish I didn't have to do this, but I have to do one of the guidelines. Yes, Your Honor. That's your key words for getting the new sentencing, I think. In the supplemental opening brief, I quote the court, and I'm trying to find it for the court. I'm sorry, Your Honor. I, oh, figure part

. It's in the supplemental opening, which was filed July 28, 2004, on page 23, no, page 13, my reading glasses are giving me a way. Here it is, I've got it. It's also excerpts of record page 3. Yeah, that's what I was looking for. They've taken everything away from us now to impose a sentence, which I think is. I've done everything to minimize the sentence that the discretion left to me is a federal judge left to me. Okay, now they gave it back. Let me ask you about a couple of other things. Are there any statutory, mandatory minimums that are going to constrain this? I'm sorry, Your Honor. I haven't looked at that. I know there was the statutory maximum that could be imposed, which is what was imposed. I'm not sure about minimums. My recollection, I have a vague recollection that there is a statutory, mandatory minimum, likely to affect this, but I don't recall seeing it in the briefs anywhere. You know, I'm concerned that the Court is asking questions about whether my client is entitled to an immediate release and whether there's a statutory minimum. The Court would like, I'd be very happy to provide supplemental briefing by it. We'll let you know if we need it

. Okay. So I've got another question, too. On the merits part of the appeal. My impression about Regist-G government conduct is that it's a category that has been delineated by words in some of the cases, and it's basically an empty set. The most outrageous government conduct is never categorized by the Court's outrageous government conduct. Because I recall there's this one case where the government sent a beautiful woman to seduce a guy and after he fell in love with her to sell her some dope, and that wouldn't outrage us. I don't remember seeing anything out of Regist. I don't think you had a case that was like this case where a Court said it was outrageous. Did you? No, Your Honor. That's true. The defense floor is saddled with the fact that there's this doctrine out there about Regist-G conduct and very little case law that we can rely on and point to and say, here's the outer boundary of what's considered outrageous. Or here's the least that can happen without being considered outrageous. In terms of this case, the Court's quite familiar with the facts. In essence, the ATF agent just went along with what Sandeblow, the practicing drug addict said, let's do. Let's do this. Well, it looks like he has plenty of predisposition

. I mean, he had guns all over the place. I beg your pardon? Sandeblow? Guns in the car, guns at home? You know, the problem with that, Your Honor, and by talking about predisposition, I think we're moving over to the entrapment argument more than outrageous. Yeah, you're trying to make it like Jacob Simworth's entrapment is a matter of law. Of course. But in terms of having guns all over the place, three guns were involved. My client's sold one, but the government didn't charge that as a specific instance of felon impossession. And as I say in the briefs, that's probably because it occurred at a point where that was much more susceptible, perhaps, to an entrapment defense. But it's the court. It looks at the facts. Again, the government had to ask Mr. Bell three times to sell its agent to gun before Mr. Bell finally produced that first gun. But there's nothing like Jacobson where there was no evidence that this farmer was even in the market for child pornography until the government kept as imposing selling efforts on him. Well, no, Your Honor. If I may disagree. If you look at Mr

. Bell's probation report, there's no firearm use in his past background. He doesn't have the felonies he was guilty of. His theft offenses, his drug-related offenses, were apparently committed without the use of a firearm. And it's only sound of all his testimony to sound of all repeating what he said to car at the ATF agent. He said, I know a man who would sell us a gun. I know he has access to guns, but how? How does he know that? There's nothing in Mr. Bell's background objectively that indicates he was a seller or a holder of firearms. So when the court says guns are all over the place, I don't think that's quite true. There were two specific instances when you saw him. But it's just going in possession, not selling the guns that he's convicted of, right? And he has the guns in his car and had them in his car before the guy that knocked them out did anything, or at least independent of anything that that fellow did. I'm sorry, Your Honor. I think you may be mistating the record. There's no way. Am I mixing up cases? I think so. I don't believe the record says Mr. Bell had these guns in that car before stand of all came along

. The record's silent on that point. We don't think so. The only thing that's independent of when stand of all came along. I mean, stand of all didn't ask him to have the guns in the car, did he? Yes, yes. The second grouping of guns, the two guns together, the one that's actually charged in the indictment, that occurs at the very end of the fat pattern. Mr. Bell had them in the car he was driving, the day he was finally arrested. It was the day he was supposed to participate in this home in Desion robbery. And he showed up and was arrested. And in the car at that time were two guns wrapped in a pair of, I think, a pair of jeans. And then some duct tape and other things that the government has argued Mr. Bell intended to use in a home in Desion robbery. Thanks for educating me. But Your Honor, unless I'm mistaken, I don't think there's anything in the record that indicates when those two guns were placed in the car. Didn't stand of all disappear after the first gun sale? Well, he reappeared. He went to Mexico

. He told everyone where he went after the fact. And he went out of the country against the ATF handlers specific instructions. And we know he committed, well, I don't know that he committed a felony in Mexico. I don't know what he did in Mexico when he shot this man in the chest. It would have been a felony had he done it here. Yeah, he disappeared for a while and he was in the hospital for a while with his. So all the discussions about the home robbery and so forth occur with the agent and with your client will send about nowhere nearby? No, I believe Sandoval was still inducing this act. If the court recalls in the fact pattern, Sandoval was in the hospital and asked Mr. Bell to come visit him. And Mr. Bell did. And apparently another conversation took place there or after Sandoval was released from the hospital more happened after that. But at any rate, it was, it was Sandoval, according to the record, who kept elevating the severity of the felony in question. Because Mr. Bell did sell a gun to the ATF agent that was the first firearm that was involved. He wasn't arrested at that time

. He could have been for selling a gun, but he wasn't. Because Sandoval persuaded this ATF agent that he could convince Mr. Bell to participate in a home invasion robbery. And then Sandoval made it a home invasion robbery where drugs were involved. It was essentially Sandoval running the whole show. Does the court have any other questions? I'll reserve my time for a bottle now. Thank you, Council. May it please the court. I'm Assistant United States Attorney Cheryl Murphy and I'll be arguing on behalf of the government this morning. I would like to address, focus mainly on the two merits related issues here, both the outrageous government conduct and the entrapment issue. With respect to the sentencing issue, however, it just likes to comment briefly on some issues that were raised. There is no statutory mandatory minimum in this case as relates to the account of conviction. There was a 924C account charged, but that was dismissed by the district court acquitted Mr. Bell of that count. So the only count of conviction does not have a mandatory minimum. Although I don't have the guidelines chart before me, even if we go with just the base offence level, which would be offence level 24, and the defendant's criminal history category, which I believe was the highest criminal history category, there is, based on my recall, I don't believe that he has served the low end of the guideline sentence

. I can't be. It counts to me, so we ought to send it back because the district judge really wanted to give him a break and felt like he couldn't. I will admit, Your Honor, Judge Tvrizian was not pleased with his lack of discretion in this case, and I think that is important. And I would simply note for the Court that under Amelene II, it does appear that this case would fall within the remand rule, although as the Court noted, that case is not final yet. I believe the government's deadline as far as whether to seek review of that opinion is tomorrow. So. So, only one circuit that said that plain error review standards aren't met, and that's the 11th circuit. Every other circuit has helped that remand is appropriate because of the nature of the sentencing schemes that we're talking about mandatory versus discretionary. I assume that's the one case that your service is relying on. Yes, Your Honor. And really, my only request is that the Court would wait to see what happens with Amelene II, given that under any circumstances that defendant is facing a considerable amount of time. But do you understand the nature of the error that the Booker case found, the nature of the Sixth Amendment error? Yes, Your Honor. What is it? The nature of the Sixth Amendment error that the Booker case found was that the defendant was denied the opportunity to have mandatory sentencing factors determined by a defense or a law that was determined by a jury rather than by the Court. So, this case, it's the mandatory nature of the scheme as opposed to the advisory nature of the scheme that's the precise Sixth Amendment violation. Correct. Correct. Well, doesn't this case just cry out, given what Judge Tobisian said for resentencing? I think the Court has a very strong point on that, Yes, Your Honor. And that's why I said the government would just simply wait request that the Court wait until Amelene II is resolved. The problem with that is that the way our Court operates in on bonds is that Amelene II might not be resolved, what's actually would be three at this point until, you know, for six months. It could be a little more. Supreme Court might decide to give us a little guidance they have before. Yeah, it could be quite a while. That is true, Your Honor. And on that point, I would cement the sentence in issue to the Court on that point because I would like to use the remainder of my time to address the Outrage of Government Conduct and the Entrapment Times. As the Court noted, the Outrage of Government Conduct doctrine is a very narrow doctrine. And there have been some cases where courts, both the Ninth Circuit and another circuit, have found in two cases conduct that was sufficiently egregious as to meet that standard. And the conduct that we have in this case, which at most amounts to passive tolerance of an unsavory informant, simply doesn't rise to the level of Outrage of Government Conduct. I think it's important to note that both would be- Do you have any one-site closely in point that- Well, yes, Your Honor, the case that- Did something like that? Well, there are cases where the government did worse than this, the case that the Court referred to earlier, the Simpson case, where Judge Hadter found that the FBI and the government had engaged in deliberate ignorance of the informant's continued sexual contact with the defendant and continued drug use with the defendant. And this Court found that even that, even deliberate ignorance, did not rise to the level of Outrage of Government Conduct. Outrage of Government Conduct requires some affirmative direction by the government for the amounts to basically engineering and crime from start to finish. And in the two cases where the courts have found outrage of Government Conduct, the government has basically been on both ends of the defendant. For example, in the twig case, the government pressured the defendant into manufacturing methamphetamine, provided the supplies, provided a manufacturing location, provided a meth cook, and provided the purchasers

. Well, doesn't this case just cry out, given what Judge Tobisian said for resentencing? I think the Court has a very strong point on that, Yes, Your Honor. And that's why I said the government would just simply wait request that the Court wait until Amelene II is resolved. The problem with that is that the way our Court operates in on bonds is that Amelene II might not be resolved, what's actually would be three at this point until, you know, for six months. It could be a little more. Supreme Court might decide to give us a little guidance they have before. Yeah, it could be quite a while. That is true, Your Honor. And on that point, I would cement the sentence in issue to the Court on that point because I would like to use the remainder of my time to address the Outrage of Government Conduct and the Entrapment Times. As the Court noted, the Outrage of Government Conduct doctrine is a very narrow doctrine. And there have been some cases where courts, both the Ninth Circuit and another circuit, have found in two cases conduct that was sufficiently egregious as to meet that standard. And the conduct that we have in this case, which at most amounts to passive tolerance of an unsavory informant, simply doesn't rise to the level of Outrage of Government Conduct. I think it's important to note that both would be- Do you have any one-site closely in point that- Well, yes, Your Honor, the case that- Did something like that? Well, there are cases where the government did worse than this, the case that the Court referred to earlier, the Simpson case, where Judge Hadter found that the FBI and the government had engaged in deliberate ignorance of the informant's continued sexual contact with the defendant and continued drug use with the defendant. And this Court found that even that, even deliberate ignorance, did not rise to the level of Outrage of Government Conduct. Outrage of Government Conduct requires some affirmative direction by the government for the amounts to basically engineering and crime from start to finish. And in the two cases where the courts have found outrage of Government Conduct, the government has basically been on both ends of the defendant. For example, in the twig case, the government pressured the defendant into manufacturing methamphetamine, provided the supplies, provided a manufacturing location, provided a meth cook, and provided the purchasers. Let's know where near what we have in this case. In this case, when we focus on the count of conviction possession of a firearm by a found, the government really simply relied on an unsavory character to identify a suspect and then provided that suspect with the opportunity to commit an offense, which the suspect willingly did. It's important to note here that with respect to both Outrage of Government Conduct and the entrapment issue, the facts are to be viewed in the light most favorable to the government. And the facts as alleged by the defendant here on appeal simply don't fit within that view. First of all, sand of all, the informant did not ask Bell to visit him. We don't, sand of all, the informant did mention to the undercover agent that he went to Mexico and was engaged in this shooting at one point following, I believe that was even following the defendants arrest, but certainly following the informants' last contact with the defendant. The undercover agent attempted to verify whether sand of all had in fact engaged in that activity and was unable to do so, but in any event that conduct of the informant doesn't relate to his interaction with the defendant and the defendant's willingness, predisposition, and the lack of inducement to engage in this conduct here. Also, with respect to whether the investigation was directed by the informant or directed by special agent Carr, again, when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, the facts indicate that special agent Carr was the one who directed this. Special agent Carr and the informant testified that they discussed at the, at their initial meeting when sand of all was signed up as an informant. They discussed the types of crimes that the ATF was interested in investigating and they discussed the types of crimes about which sand of all had information. This discussion included both sales of firearms and home invasion robberies at that initial point. Now, when sand of all first identified the defendant Bell to the undercover agent, it was with respect to selling firearms. Granted, it was during the course of the investigation during the first three meetings, in between the first three meetings with the defendant, that the informant then mentioned to the undercover agent that defendant Bell was also interested in committing home invasion robbery. So, the moment invasion robberies are among or way up at the top end in terms of seriousness of danger of crimes, remind me of the details of whose idea that was and how that came up. Well, the ATF initial meeting, the informant and Carr discussed the fact that the informant had participated in home invasion robberies on behalf of LAPD previously as an informant. Sand of all had participated in them

. Let's know where near what we have in this case. In this case, when we focus on the count of conviction possession of a firearm by a found, the government really simply relied on an unsavory character to identify a suspect and then provided that suspect with the opportunity to commit an offense, which the suspect willingly did. It's important to note here that with respect to both Outrage of Government Conduct and the entrapment issue, the facts are to be viewed in the light most favorable to the government. And the facts as alleged by the defendant here on appeal simply don't fit within that view. First of all, sand of all, the informant did not ask Bell to visit him. We don't, sand of all, the informant did mention to the undercover agent that he went to Mexico and was engaged in this shooting at one point following, I believe that was even following the defendants arrest, but certainly following the informants' last contact with the defendant. The undercover agent attempted to verify whether sand of all had in fact engaged in that activity and was unable to do so, but in any event that conduct of the informant doesn't relate to his interaction with the defendant and the defendant's willingness, predisposition, and the lack of inducement to engage in this conduct here. Also, with respect to whether the investigation was directed by the informant or directed by special agent Carr, again, when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, the facts indicate that special agent Carr was the one who directed this. Special agent Carr and the informant testified that they discussed at the, at their initial meeting when sand of all was signed up as an informant. They discussed the types of crimes that the ATF was interested in investigating and they discussed the types of crimes about which sand of all had information. This discussion included both sales of firearms and home invasion robberies at that initial point. Now, when sand of all first identified the defendant Bell to the undercover agent, it was with respect to selling firearms. Granted, it was during the course of the investigation during the first three meetings, in between the first three meetings with the defendant, that the informant then mentioned to the undercover agent that defendant Bell was also interested in committing home invasion robbery. So, the moment invasion robberies are among or way up at the top end in terms of seriousness of danger of crimes, remind me of the details of whose idea that was and how that came up. Well, the ATF initial meeting, the informant and Carr discussed the fact that the informant had participated in home invasion robberies on behalf of LAPD previously as an informant. Sand of all had participated in them. As an informant for the LAPD, he had worked home invasion robberies, yes. And special agent Carr indicated at that initial meeting that that was one of the types of crimes for which the ATF was interested in receiving information from the informant. Fast forward a little bit and the informant identifies the defendant Bell as a gun dealer. Two special agent Carr. And they began the investigation with respect to defendant Bell as far as his ability to sell firearms. There's an initial meeting on May 30th where the informant is wired up. Hold on. You're telling me the whole story here and it's not focusing on my question. Let me make my question clear. It looked to me as one way of looking at this is Bell sells guns under the counter. And Sand of all nails him on that. But that the home invasion robbery was completely Sand of all's idea. Bell goes along with it. Is that right? That is not correct, Your Honor. Sand of all involvement in the home invasion robbery was limited to two facts. First, he identified Bell to special agent Carr as, by the way, as well as selling guns, this guy, Defendant Bell is willing to participate in home invasion robberies

. As an informant for the LAPD, he had worked home invasion robberies, yes. And special agent Carr indicated at that initial meeting that that was one of the types of crimes for which the ATF was interested in receiving information from the informant. Fast forward a little bit and the informant identifies the defendant Bell as a gun dealer. Two special agent Carr. And they began the investigation with respect to defendant Bell as far as his ability to sell firearms. There's an initial meeting on May 30th where the informant is wired up. Hold on. You're telling me the whole story here and it's not focusing on my question. Let me make my question clear. It looked to me as one way of looking at this is Bell sells guns under the counter. And Sand of all nails him on that. But that the home invasion robbery was completely Sand of all's idea. Bell goes along with it. Is that right? That is not correct, Your Honor. Sand of all involvement in the home invasion robbery was limited to two facts. First, he identified Bell to special agent Carr as, by the way, as well as selling guns, this guy, Defendant Bell is willing to participate in home invasion robberies. Sand of all's second involvement was his mere presence at the June 5th meeting where special agent Carr and the defendant discussed the potential home invasion robbery. From then on, the home invasion robbery scheme was entirely limited to special agent Carr, Bell, and the two associates that Bell brought with him to various meetings. It was special agent Carr who portrayed to Bell the fact that he was a disgruntled drug courier who wished to rip off the narcotics from his boss because he felt he wasn't being treated properly. And in all of the subsequent meetings, it was special agent Carr and the defendant who discussed the home invasion robbery after that initial meeting and the initial introduction, Sand of all was cut out. Now, Sand of all reappears at the meeting at the hospital, which is later in June, I forgot the exact date. But that meeting is not contrary to the representation earlier. That meeting was not initiated by Sand of all. That meeting was initiated by special agent Carr who told Bell, especially Carr and Bell had had conversations about where is Sand of all. And they determined that Sand of all was in the hospital and they agreed to meet in Sand of all's hospital room. They're upon special agent Bell and Carr, I'm sorry, special agent Carr and defendant Bell discussed the home invasion robbery as well as additional sales of firearms in the informants presence, but the informant was in and out of consciousness and was not an active participant at that point. With respect to the entrapment issue, again, when viewed in light most favorable to the government, the government did present particularized evidence that both Bell was predisposed not to sell firearms as the defense contends, but that he was predisposed to possess firearms, which is the crime of conviction. And second, that the government did not induce him to do so in any way. And I would like to make one other correction to the record, which is there was a statement that there's no evidence of firearm use in the defendant's background, and that's not correct. One of the defendant's prior felonies was robbery with a firearm, and that's reflected in paragraph 79 of the Presentance Report. It's also a conviction to which the defendant admitted prior to the beginning of trial in a colloquy with the court in order to admit the predicate for the Holland and Possession Charge. Other than the send of all's comments, what evidence is there that Bell was involved in gun sales the last eight years before he meets agent Carr? Well, there's no particularized evidence that Bell was involved in gun sales other than his willingness to sell guns to special agent Carr

. Sand of all's second involvement was his mere presence at the June 5th meeting where special agent Carr and the defendant discussed the potential home invasion robbery. From then on, the home invasion robbery scheme was entirely limited to special agent Carr, Bell, and the two associates that Bell brought with him to various meetings. It was special agent Carr who portrayed to Bell the fact that he was a disgruntled drug courier who wished to rip off the narcotics from his boss because he felt he wasn't being treated properly. And in all of the subsequent meetings, it was special agent Carr and the defendant who discussed the home invasion robbery after that initial meeting and the initial introduction, Sand of all was cut out. Now, Sand of all reappears at the meeting at the hospital, which is later in June, I forgot the exact date. But that meeting is not contrary to the representation earlier. That meeting was not initiated by Sand of all. That meeting was initiated by special agent Carr who told Bell, especially Carr and Bell had had conversations about where is Sand of all. And they determined that Sand of all was in the hospital and they agreed to meet in Sand of all's hospital room. They're upon special agent Bell and Carr, I'm sorry, special agent Carr and defendant Bell discussed the home invasion robbery as well as additional sales of firearms in the informants presence, but the informant was in and out of consciousness and was not an active participant at that point. With respect to the entrapment issue, again, when viewed in light most favorable to the government, the government did present particularized evidence that both Bell was predisposed not to sell firearms as the defense contends, but that he was predisposed to possess firearms, which is the crime of conviction. And second, that the government did not induce him to do so in any way. And I would like to make one other correction to the record, which is there was a statement that there's no evidence of firearm use in the defendant's background, and that's not correct. One of the defendant's prior felonies was robbery with a firearm, and that's reflected in paragraph 79 of the Presentance Report. It's also a conviction to which the defendant admitted prior to the beginning of trial in a colloquy with the court in order to admit the predicate for the Holland and Possession Charge. Other than the send of all's comments, what evidence is there that Bell was involved in gun sales the last eight years before he meets agent Carr? Well, there's no particularized evidence that Bell was involved in gun sales other than his willingness to sell guns to special agent Carr. And his own admissions in his testimony that what he wanted to do in this case was sell guns to special agent Carr. Which is supposedly sent of all's idea in the first place, sent of all tales, Bell, he can rip off Carr by selling them guns in more than a word, but he doesn't know any better, something like that? Well, stand of all tales, Bell, that he has this rich, right crappy guy who wants to buy guns, and that because he has money to buy guns, the defendant can make money by selling to special agent Carr. And Bell claims Carr that send of all provides the furry first gun. Correct. Bell did claim. Which is not charged. Which is not charged. Although I must say that the reasons that the government didn't charge that I think are not to be considered by this Court, however I will say, since I was the trial court prosecutor, the reasons that that crime were not charged is simply that the government viewed that as simply another instance of felon in possession. When we already had the better instance of felon in possession on the date that he was arrested when he had two guns and when he showed up to the robbery, the government's entire real focus on this case, and I think the defendants in the district court as well, were the more serious charges, the narcotics conspiracy, the Hobbes-up conspiracy, the 924C, and the felon in possession was really a minor charge when viewed in the case as a whole. So when viewing the case that way, In the jury saw your other charges, 11 to 1 is not guilty. I don't believe there was a count on the record. It might be mistaken about that, but I don't believe there was a count on the record. There were some commentary at later proceedings that either one of the parties or the court believed that was the count, but the jury is never officially counted. But you're correct. The jury was not able to come to agreement on the three more serious charges, certainly. Were they instructed on the interrapment? Yes, they were

. And his own admissions in his testimony that what he wanted to do in this case was sell guns to special agent Carr. Which is supposedly sent of all's idea in the first place, sent of all tales, Bell, he can rip off Carr by selling them guns in more than a word, but he doesn't know any better, something like that? Well, stand of all tales, Bell, that he has this rich, right crappy guy who wants to buy guns, and that because he has money to buy guns, the defendant can make money by selling to special agent Carr. And Bell claims Carr that send of all provides the furry first gun. Correct. Bell did claim. Which is not charged. Which is not charged. Although I must say that the reasons that the government didn't charge that I think are not to be considered by this Court, however I will say, since I was the trial court prosecutor, the reasons that that crime were not charged is simply that the government viewed that as simply another instance of felon in possession. When we already had the better instance of felon in possession on the date that he was arrested when he had two guns and when he showed up to the robbery, the government's entire real focus on this case, and I think the defendants in the district court as well, were the more serious charges, the narcotics conspiracy, the Hobbes-up conspiracy, the 924C, and the felon in possession was really a minor charge when viewed in the case as a whole. So when viewing the case that way, In the jury saw your other charges, 11 to 1 is not guilty. I don't believe there was a count on the record. It might be mistaken about that, but I don't believe there was a count on the record. There were some commentary at later proceedings that either one of the parties or the court believed that was the count, but the jury is never officially counted. But you're correct. The jury was not able to come to agreement on the three more serious charges, certainly. Were they instructed on the interrapment? Yes, they were. They were. Um. An additional piece. It looks like the jury had a real bad opinion of sand evolve and of the way the government used them, and they only convicted Bell on the one thing where there was just no way around it. They're the guns and they were spelled with the guns. Well, I would submit your honor that we don't know really what the jury was thinking. Well, you never know for sure. They may have been offended by the sting operation. I mean, but you're correct that the only thing that they came up with a conviction on was the felony and possession. And they were presented evidence about that of the entrapment issue and they were instructed on the entrapment issue. And there was. In addition to the defendant's character and reputation, there's the fact that the defendant admitted all along. That he was engaged in this enterprise for profit. What he wanted to do all along was make money off of car. Tell me, um, in a sentence or two, just so I don't lose it. Why is there evidence that Bell was predisposed to possess those two guns independently of sand evolve setting them up for the phony home invasion robbery? Independent of sand evolve and the home invasion robbery prior to when that issue arose

. They were. Um. An additional piece. It looks like the jury had a real bad opinion of sand evolve and of the way the government used them, and they only convicted Bell on the one thing where there was just no way around it. They're the guns and they were spelled with the guns. Well, I would submit your honor that we don't know really what the jury was thinking. Well, you never know for sure. They may have been offended by the sting operation. I mean, but you're correct that the only thing that they came up with a conviction on was the felony and possession. And they were presented evidence about that of the entrapment issue and they were instructed on the entrapment issue. And there was. In addition to the defendant's character and reputation, there's the fact that the defendant admitted all along. That he was engaged in this enterprise for profit. What he wanted to do all along was make money off of car. Tell me, um, in a sentence or two, just so I don't lose it. Why is there evidence that Bell was predisposed to possess those two guns independently of sand evolve setting them up for the phony home invasion robbery? Independent of sand evolve and the home invasion robbery prior to when that issue arose. The defendant had engaged in negotiations and expressed a willingness to sell a firearm or more than one firearm to special agent car. So that action alone indicates a willingness on his part at least. And then he on the same date as the home invasion robbery conversation was first initiated with the defendant. That's the same date that he did in fact sell a firearm to special agent car. Proceeding from that point, all of the meetings with special agent car, the defendant, uh, through his words and actions indicated that he was willing to continue to sell guns to special agent car. And the fact that there were multiple meetings and that he did not immediately provide the gun, doesn't necessarily indicate either a lack of predisposition or that he was reluctant in any sense and needed to be persuaded by the government. In fact, Bell says on a number of occasions the first occasion he didn't have the gun because the police had visited his supplier and his supplier was spooked and didn't want to have contact with guns at that immediate time. But he reassured that the conversation that was recorded that was the conversation on May 31st. Yes, it was recorded. It was with the with the informant, especially, agent car was not present there. During later conversations that were recorded with special agent car, Bell again tells him no problem. I can get you the guns. He doesn't he doesn't ever express to special agent car that he doesn't want to possess guns that he doesn't like firearms. That he doesn't want to be involved in fact with firearms at all. He only comes up with that version of the story later at trial when he still admits that he wanted to sell guns to special agent car. He just pouches this in sort of a reluctance to commit the home invasion robbery

. The defendant had engaged in negotiations and expressed a willingness to sell a firearm or more than one firearm to special agent car. So that action alone indicates a willingness on his part at least. And then he on the same date as the home invasion robbery conversation was first initiated with the defendant. That's the same date that he did in fact sell a firearm to special agent car. Proceeding from that point, all of the meetings with special agent car, the defendant, uh, through his words and actions indicated that he was willing to continue to sell guns to special agent car. And the fact that there were multiple meetings and that he did not immediately provide the gun, doesn't necessarily indicate either a lack of predisposition or that he was reluctant in any sense and needed to be persuaded by the government. In fact, Bell says on a number of occasions the first occasion he didn't have the gun because the police had visited his supplier and his supplier was spooked and didn't want to have contact with guns at that immediate time. But he reassured that the conversation that was recorded that was the conversation on May 31st. Yes, it was recorded. It was with the with the informant, especially, agent car was not present there. During later conversations that were recorded with special agent car, Bell again tells him no problem. I can get you the guns. He doesn't he doesn't ever express to special agent car that he doesn't want to possess guns that he doesn't like firearms. That he doesn't want to be involved in fact with firearms at all. He only comes up with that version of the story later at trial when he still admits that he wanted to sell guns to special agent car. He just pouches this in sort of a reluctance to commit the home invasion robbery. There are no further questions. Thank you, Ernest. Thank you. Go for it. Thank you, go for it. Thank you. Thank you, go for it. I will testify that car, the ATF agent contacted Mr. Bell and arranged to meet in Sandebel's hotel room or hospital room. But during the defense case, Mr. Bell's wife, Mrs. F's, testified that Sandebel called their house, told her he was in the hospital and asked to have Mr. Bell come see him. The defense agrees that in a sufficiency analysis that particular fact would have to be construed against the defense. Nevertheless, it's there in the record that Sandebel was part of the process of stringing Mr. Bell along and Sandebel was making himself still available to Mr

. There are no further questions. Thank you, Ernest. Thank you. Go for it. Thank you, go for it. Thank you. Thank you, go for it. I will testify that car, the ATF agent contacted Mr. Bell and arranged to meet in Sandebel's hotel room or hospital room. But during the defense case, Mr. Bell's wife, Mrs. F's, testified that Sandebel called their house, told her he was in the hospital and asked to have Mr. Bell come see him. The defense agrees that in a sufficiency analysis that particular fact would have to be construed against the defense. Nevertheless, it's there in the record that Sandebel was part of the process of stringing Mr. Bell along and Sandebel was making himself still available to Mr. Bell. I submit because the government was concerned that Mr. Bell what might have been backing out or changing his mind about this. And finally, I would just want to point out to the Court. It's true that Mr. Bell admits during his testimony trial that he kept doing this and stringing the car along as Sandebel had urged him to because Mr. Bell wanted to make money off of car. But there's no evidence in the record at all that Mr. Bell was the one who approached Sandebel in the first place and said, I want to make money off of anybody or I want to sell firearms to make money. Does the Court have any further questions? Thank you, Rums. Thank you. United States versus Bell is submitted.

Good morning, Your Honor. It's Tara DeVito for Defendants in Appellant Ralph Bell. Excuse me. Council, my ears are all messed up from the airplane flight, and it's hard to hear. Can you talk loud? Loud and clear. Sorry, Your Honor, I thought I was. Not your fault, it's me. Your Honor, addressing the sentencing issue first in this case, it appears evidence at least to the defense that in light of Blakely and Booker Fan Fan, and then this circuit's decision last week in the new decision in the Amelene case, this case will call for a remand for new sentencing hearing. This is a case where the judge said that the judge said that I can't remember what Judge was. He or she felt badly because she was constrained by the guidelines. Yes, it was Judge Tarriksian, Your Honor, Tarbizian. And he said during the sentencing hearing, he had already minimized the sentence as much as he could and felt constrained by the fact that he had no discretion left under the sentencing guidelines to provide a more meaningful sentence. And what is it possible that Mr. Bell has already served his maximum sentence? No, he's still in course. Well, I mean, in the event of a new sentencing hearing, I'm not sure, because your Honor, there's a number of different ranges that could be applied. And within those ranges, Judge Tarriksian now has the discretion to sentence at the low end or the high end. It would depend on what he chose to do. But it has the sense that the low end would your client be released from prison. He could very well be yes. I won't address that in the long term. Is that right? I may be remembering the wrong case, but I thought we're talking tends to serve because it's fell in imposition. The guy has a record. Is that right? That is correct, Your Honor. But under Amelene, we're not just looking at the classic Blakely situation where Amelene's not final yet. The mandate has an issued. It may be subject to an unbunk. Yes, talk and understand that your man fan. I'm sorry, let's talk about Booker Fan Fan. Under Fan Fan, your remedial sentencing, right, but Justice Breyer said, we all know we have to follow that, right? Yes, exactly. So following that Justice Breyer said for us, in light of the entire decision in Booker Fan Fan, the reasoning of Amelene is really what I'm addressing, not the presidential value of that case. Amelene says not only that cases have to be sent back for recentencing where district courts did rely on factors that weren't embraced by a jury's verdict, but also in light of Booker Fan Fan, a district court can now consider grounds for departure. And it seems to me that's what Judge Dabriety was really looking at. I have no problem with that. I was just wondering about whether the fellow is entitled to get out right now. No, I don't think so, Your Honor. I'd like to say yes, but based on how long this case has been around, I don't think in light of his criminal record, it's going to go that low in the sentencing range. That goes very well. The first is that whether this case is a case that needs to wait for Amelene to be final before we would remand or whether in light of the district court statements and other issues in the record, his pre-conviction, rehabilitation, for example, we should do a castor remand now. You Honor, because of the fact that we know the base has been enhanced by four levels that shouldn't have been applied, we already know a sentencing remand is required. So therefore, I believe, yes, the court can send this back now, even before Amelene is final. Even without Amelene sentencing, resentencing is required in this case. I submit to you that the only thing that Amelene may clarify is if clear error review is the standard that we're applying here, does Mr. Bell lose on that ground? Well, no, not at all. What were the, do you recall exactly where, or what the judge said, what his words were, where he basically said, gee, I wish I didn't have to do this, but I have to do one of the guidelines. Yes, Your Honor. That's your key words for getting the new sentencing, I think. In the supplemental opening brief, I quote the court, and I'm trying to find it for the court. I'm sorry, Your Honor. I, oh, figure part. It's in the supplemental opening, which was filed July 28, 2004, on page 23, no, page 13, my reading glasses are giving me a way. Here it is, I've got it. It's also excerpts of record page 3. Yeah, that's what I was looking for. They've taken everything away from us now to impose a sentence, which I think is. I've done everything to minimize the sentence that the discretion left to me is a federal judge left to me. Okay, now they gave it back. Let me ask you about a couple of other things. Are there any statutory, mandatory minimums that are going to constrain this? I'm sorry, Your Honor. I haven't looked at that. I know there was the statutory maximum that could be imposed, which is what was imposed. I'm not sure about minimums. My recollection, I have a vague recollection that there is a statutory, mandatory minimum, likely to affect this, but I don't recall seeing it in the briefs anywhere. You know, I'm concerned that the Court is asking questions about whether my client is entitled to an immediate release and whether there's a statutory minimum. The Court would like, I'd be very happy to provide supplemental briefing by it. We'll let you know if we need it. Okay. So I've got another question, too. On the merits part of the appeal. My impression about Regist-G government conduct is that it's a category that has been delineated by words in some of the cases, and it's basically an empty set. The most outrageous government conduct is never categorized by the Court's outrageous government conduct. Because I recall there's this one case where the government sent a beautiful woman to seduce a guy and after he fell in love with her to sell her some dope, and that wouldn't outrage us. I don't remember seeing anything out of Regist. I don't think you had a case that was like this case where a Court said it was outrageous. Did you? No, Your Honor. That's true. The defense floor is saddled with the fact that there's this doctrine out there about Regist-G conduct and very little case law that we can rely on and point to and say, here's the outer boundary of what's considered outrageous. Or here's the least that can happen without being considered outrageous. In terms of this case, the Court's quite familiar with the facts. In essence, the ATF agent just went along with what Sandeblow, the practicing drug addict said, let's do. Let's do this. Well, it looks like he has plenty of predisposition. I mean, he had guns all over the place. I beg your pardon? Sandeblow? Guns in the car, guns at home? You know, the problem with that, Your Honor, and by talking about predisposition, I think we're moving over to the entrapment argument more than outrageous. Yeah, you're trying to make it like Jacob Simworth's entrapment is a matter of law. Of course. But in terms of having guns all over the place, three guns were involved. My client's sold one, but the government didn't charge that as a specific instance of felon impossession. And as I say in the briefs, that's probably because it occurred at a point where that was much more susceptible, perhaps, to an entrapment defense. But it's the court. It looks at the facts. Again, the government had to ask Mr. Bell three times to sell its agent to gun before Mr. Bell finally produced that first gun. But there's nothing like Jacobson where there was no evidence that this farmer was even in the market for child pornography until the government kept as imposing selling efforts on him. Well, no, Your Honor. If I may disagree. If you look at Mr. Bell's probation report, there's no firearm use in his past background. He doesn't have the felonies he was guilty of. His theft offenses, his drug-related offenses, were apparently committed without the use of a firearm. And it's only sound of all his testimony to sound of all repeating what he said to car at the ATF agent. He said, I know a man who would sell us a gun. I know he has access to guns, but how? How does he know that? There's nothing in Mr. Bell's background objectively that indicates he was a seller or a holder of firearms. So when the court says guns are all over the place, I don't think that's quite true. There were two specific instances when you saw him. But it's just going in possession, not selling the guns that he's convicted of, right? And he has the guns in his car and had them in his car before the guy that knocked them out did anything, or at least independent of anything that that fellow did. I'm sorry, Your Honor. I think you may be mistating the record. There's no way. Am I mixing up cases? I think so. I don't believe the record says Mr. Bell had these guns in that car before stand of all came along. The record's silent on that point. We don't think so. The only thing that's independent of when stand of all came along. I mean, stand of all didn't ask him to have the guns in the car, did he? Yes, yes. The second grouping of guns, the two guns together, the one that's actually charged in the indictment, that occurs at the very end of the fat pattern. Mr. Bell had them in the car he was driving, the day he was finally arrested. It was the day he was supposed to participate in this home in Desion robbery. And he showed up and was arrested. And in the car at that time were two guns wrapped in a pair of, I think, a pair of jeans. And then some duct tape and other things that the government has argued Mr. Bell intended to use in a home in Desion robbery. Thanks for educating me. But Your Honor, unless I'm mistaken, I don't think there's anything in the record that indicates when those two guns were placed in the car. Didn't stand of all disappear after the first gun sale? Well, he reappeared. He went to Mexico. He told everyone where he went after the fact. And he went out of the country against the ATF handlers specific instructions. And we know he committed, well, I don't know that he committed a felony in Mexico. I don't know what he did in Mexico when he shot this man in the chest. It would have been a felony had he done it here. Yeah, he disappeared for a while and he was in the hospital for a while with his. So all the discussions about the home robbery and so forth occur with the agent and with your client will send about nowhere nearby? No, I believe Sandoval was still inducing this act. If the court recalls in the fact pattern, Sandoval was in the hospital and asked Mr. Bell to come visit him. And Mr. Bell did. And apparently another conversation took place there or after Sandoval was released from the hospital more happened after that. But at any rate, it was, it was Sandoval, according to the record, who kept elevating the severity of the felony in question. Because Mr. Bell did sell a gun to the ATF agent that was the first firearm that was involved. He wasn't arrested at that time. He could have been for selling a gun, but he wasn't. Because Sandoval persuaded this ATF agent that he could convince Mr. Bell to participate in a home invasion robbery. And then Sandoval made it a home invasion robbery where drugs were involved. It was essentially Sandoval running the whole show. Does the court have any other questions? I'll reserve my time for a bottle now. Thank you, Council. May it please the court. I'm Assistant United States Attorney Cheryl Murphy and I'll be arguing on behalf of the government this morning. I would like to address, focus mainly on the two merits related issues here, both the outrageous government conduct and the entrapment issue. With respect to the sentencing issue, however, it just likes to comment briefly on some issues that were raised. There is no statutory mandatory minimum in this case as relates to the account of conviction. There was a 924C account charged, but that was dismissed by the district court acquitted Mr. Bell of that count. So the only count of conviction does not have a mandatory minimum. Although I don't have the guidelines chart before me, even if we go with just the base offence level, which would be offence level 24, and the defendant's criminal history category, which I believe was the highest criminal history category, there is, based on my recall, I don't believe that he has served the low end of the guideline sentence. I can't be. It counts to me, so we ought to send it back because the district judge really wanted to give him a break and felt like he couldn't. I will admit, Your Honor, Judge Tvrizian was not pleased with his lack of discretion in this case, and I think that is important. And I would simply note for the Court that under Amelene II, it does appear that this case would fall within the remand rule, although as the Court noted, that case is not final yet. I believe the government's deadline as far as whether to seek review of that opinion is tomorrow. So. So, only one circuit that said that plain error review standards aren't met, and that's the 11th circuit. Every other circuit has helped that remand is appropriate because of the nature of the sentencing schemes that we're talking about mandatory versus discretionary. I assume that's the one case that your service is relying on. Yes, Your Honor. And really, my only request is that the Court would wait to see what happens with Amelene II, given that under any circumstances that defendant is facing a considerable amount of time. But do you understand the nature of the error that the Booker case found, the nature of the Sixth Amendment error? Yes, Your Honor. What is it? The nature of the Sixth Amendment error that the Booker case found was that the defendant was denied the opportunity to have mandatory sentencing factors determined by a defense or a law that was determined by a jury rather than by the Court. So, this case, it's the mandatory nature of the scheme as opposed to the advisory nature of the scheme that's the precise Sixth Amendment violation. Correct. Correct. Well, doesn't this case just cry out, given what Judge Tobisian said for resentencing? I think the Court has a very strong point on that, Yes, Your Honor. And that's why I said the government would just simply wait request that the Court wait until Amelene II is resolved. The problem with that is that the way our Court operates in on bonds is that Amelene II might not be resolved, what's actually would be three at this point until, you know, for six months. It could be a little more. Supreme Court might decide to give us a little guidance they have before. Yeah, it could be quite a while. That is true, Your Honor. And on that point, I would cement the sentence in issue to the Court on that point because I would like to use the remainder of my time to address the Outrage of Government Conduct and the Entrapment Times. As the Court noted, the Outrage of Government Conduct doctrine is a very narrow doctrine. And there have been some cases where courts, both the Ninth Circuit and another circuit, have found in two cases conduct that was sufficiently egregious as to meet that standard. And the conduct that we have in this case, which at most amounts to passive tolerance of an unsavory informant, simply doesn't rise to the level of Outrage of Government Conduct. I think it's important to note that both would be- Do you have any one-site closely in point that- Well, yes, Your Honor, the case that- Did something like that? Well, there are cases where the government did worse than this, the case that the Court referred to earlier, the Simpson case, where Judge Hadter found that the FBI and the government had engaged in deliberate ignorance of the informant's continued sexual contact with the defendant and continued drug use with the defendant. And this Court found that even that, even deliberate ignorance, did not rise to the level of Outrage of Government Conduct. Outrage of Government Conduct requires some affirmative direction by the government for the amounts to basically engineering and crime from start to finish. And in the two cases where the courts have found outrage of Government Conduct, the government has basically been on both ends of the defendant. For example, in the twig case, the government pressured the defendant into manufacturing methamphetamine, provided the supplies, provided a manufacturing location, provided a meth cook, and provided the purchasers. Let's know where near what we have in this case. In this case, when we focus on the count of conviction possession of a firearm by a found, the government really simply relied on an unsavory character to identify a suspect and then provided that suspect with the opportunity to commit an offense, which the suspect willingly did. It's important to note here that with respect to both Outrage of Government Conduct and the entrapment issue, the facts are to be viewed in the light most favorable to the government. And the facts as alleged by the defendant here on appeal simply don't fit within that view. First of all, sand of all, the informant did not ask Bell to visit him. We don't, sand of all, the informant did mention to the undercover agent that he went to Mexico and was engaged in this shooting at one point following, I believe that was even following the defendants arrest, but certainly following the informants' last contact with the defendant. The undercover agent attempted to verify whether sand of all had in fact engaged in that activity and was unable to do so, but in any event that conduct of the informant doesn't relate to his interaction with the defendant and the defendant's willingness, predisposition, and the lack of inducement to engage in this conduct here. Also, with respect to whether the investigation was directed by the informant or directed by special agent Carr, again, when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, the facts indicate that special agent Carr was the one who directed this. Special agent Carr and the informant testified that they discussed at the, at their initial meeting when sand of all was signed up as an informant. They discussed the types of crimes that the ATF was interested in investigating and they discussed the types of crimes about which sand of all had information. This discussion included both sales of firearms and home invasion robberies at that initial point. Now, when sand of all first identified the defendant Bell to the undercover agent, it was with respect to selling firearms. Granted, it was during the course of the investigation during the first three meetings, in between the first three meetings with the defendant, that the informant then mentioned to the undercover agent that defendant Bell was also interested in committing home invasion robbery. So, the moment invasion robberies are among or way up at the top end in terms of seriousness of danger of crimes, remind me of the details of whose idea that was and how that came up. Well, the ATF initial meeting, the informant and Carr discussed the fact that the informant had participated in home invasion robberies on behalf of LAPD previously as an informant. Sand of all had participated in them. As an informant for the LAPD, he had worked home invasion robberies, yes. And special agent Carr indicated at that initial meeting that that was one of the types of crimes for which the ATF was interested in receiving information from the informant. Fast forward a little bit and the informant identifies the defendant Bell as a gun dealer. Two special agent Carr. And they began the investigation with respect to defendant Bell as far as his ability to sell firearms. There's an initial meeting on May 30th where the informant is wired up. Hold on. You're telling me the whole story here and it's not focusing on my question. Let me make my question clear. It looked to me as one way of looking at this is Bell sells guns under the counter. And Sand of all nails him on that. But that the home invasion robbery was completely Sand of all's idea. Bell goes along with it. Is that right? That is not correct, Your Honor. Sand of all involvement in the home invasion robbery was limited to two facts. First, he identified Bell to special agent Carr as, by the way, as well as selling guns, this guy, Defendant Bell is willing to participate in home invasion robberies. Sand of all's second involvement was his mere presence at the June 5th meeting where special agent Carr and the defendant discussed the potential home invasion robbery. From then on, the home invasion robbery scheme was entirely limited to special agent Carr, Bell, and the two associates that Bell brought with him to various meetings. It was special agent Carr who portrayed to Bell the fact that he was a disgruntled drug courier who wished to rip off the narcotics from his boss because he felt he wasn't being treated properly. And in all of the subsequent meetings, it was special agent Carr and the defendant who discussed the home invasion robbery after that initial meeting and the initial introduction, Sand of all was cut out. Now, Sand of all reappears at the meeting at the hospital, which is later in June, I forgot the exact date. But that meeting is not contrary to the representation earlier. That meeting was not initiated by Sand of all. That meeting was initiated by special agent Carr who told Bell, especially Carr and Bell had had conversations about where is Sand of all. And they determined that Sand of all was in the hospital and they agreed to meet in Sand of all's hospital room. They're upon special agent Bell and Carr, I'm sorry, special agent Carr and defendant Bell discussed the home invasion robbery as well as additional sales of firearms in the informants presence, but the informant was in and out of consciousness and was not an active participant at that point. With respect to the entrapment issue, again, when viewed in light most favorable to the government, the government did present particularized evidence that both Bell was predisposed not to sell firearms as the defense contends, but that he was predisposed to possess firearms, which is the crime of conviction. And second, that the government did not induce him to do so in any way. And I would like to make one other correction to the record, which is there was a statement that there's no evidence of firearm use in the defendant's background, and that's not correct. One of the defendant's prior felonies was robbery with a firearm, and that's reflected in paragraph 79 of the Presentance Report. It's also a conviction to which the defendant admitted prior to the beginning of trial in a colloquy with the court in order to admit the predicate for the Holland and Possession Charge. Other than the send of all's comments, what evidence is there that Bell was involved in gun sales the last eight years before he meets agent Carr? Well, there's no particularized evidence that Bell was involved in gun sales other than his willingness to sell guns to special agent Carr. And his own admissions in his testimony that what he wanted to do in this case was sell guns to special agent Carr. Which is supposedly sent of all's idea in the first place, sent of all tales, Bell, he can rip off Carr by selling them guns in more than a word, but he doesn't know any better, something like that? Well, stand of all tales, Bell, that he has this rich, right crappy guy who wants to buy guns, and that because he has money to buy guns, the defendant can make money by selling to special agent Carr. And Bell claims Carr that send of all provides the furry first gun. Correct. Bell did claim. Which is not charged. Which is not charged. Although I must say that the reasons that the government didn't charge that I think are not to be considered by this Court, however I will say, since I was the trial court prosecutor, the reasons that that crime were not charged is simply that the government viewed that as simply another instance of felon in possession. When we already had the better instance of felon in possession on the date that he was arrested when he had two guns and when he showed up to the robbery, the government's entire real focus on this case, and I think the defendants in the district court as well, were the more serious charges, the narcotics conspiracy, the Hobbes-up conspiracy, the 924C, and the felon in possession was really a minor charge when viewed in the case as a whole. So when viewing the case that way, In the jury saw your other charges, 11 to 1 is not guilty. I don't believe there was a count on the record. It might be mistaken about that, but I don't believe there was a count on the record. There were some commentary at later proceedings that either one of the parties or the court believed that was the count, but the jury is never officially counted. But you're correct. The jury was not able to come to agreement on the three more serious charges, certainly. Were they instructed on the interrapment? Yes, they were. They were. Um. An additional piece. It looks like the jury had a real bad opinion of sand evolve and of the way the government used them, and they only convicted Bell on the one thing where there was just no way around it. They're the guns and they were spelled with the guns. Well, I would submit your honor that we don't know really what the jury was thinking. Well, you never know for sure. They may have been offended by the sting operation. I mean, but you're correct that the only thing that they came up with a conviction on was the felony and possession. And they were presented evidence about that of the entrapment issue and they were instructed on the entrapment issue. And there was. In addition to the defendant's character and reputation, there's the fact that the defendant admitted all along. That he was engaged in this enterprise for profit. What he wanted to do all along was make money off of car. Tell me, um, in a sentence or two, just so I don't lose it. Why is there evidence that Bell was predisposed to possess those two guns independently of sand evolve setting them up for the phony home invasion robbery? Independent of sand evolve and the home invasion robbery prior to when that issue arose. The defendant had engaged in negotiations and expressed a willingness to sell a firearm or more than one firearm to special agent car. So that action alone indicates a willingness on his part at least. And then he on the same date as the home invasion robbery conversation was first initiated with the defendant. That's the same date that he did in fact sell a firearm to special agent car. Proceeding from that point, all of the meetings with special agent car, the defendant, uh, through his words and actions indicated that he was willing to continue to sell guns to special agent car. And the fact that there were multiple meetings and that he did not immediately provide the gun, doesn't necessarily indicate either a lack of predisposition or that he was reluctant in any sense and needed to be persuaded by the government. In fact, Bell says on a number of occasions the first occasion he didn't have the gun because the police had visited his supplier and his supplier was spooked and didn't want to have contact with guns at that immediate time. But he reassured that the conversation that was recorded that was the conversation on May 31st. Yes, it was recorded. It was with the with the informant, especially, agent car was not present there. During later conversations that were recorded with special agent car, Bell again tells him no problem. I can get you the guns. He doesn't he doesn't ever express to special agent car that he doesn't want to possess guns that he doesn't like firearms. That he doesn't want to be involved in fact with firearms at all. He only comes up with that version of the story later at trial when he still admits that he wanted to sell guns to special agent car. He just pouches this in sort of a reluctance to commit the home invasion robbery. There are no further questions. Thank you, Ernest. Thank you. Go for it. Thank you, go for it. Thank you. Thank you, go for it. I will testify that car, the ATF agent contacted Mr. Bell and arranged to meet in Sandebel's hotel room or hospital room. But during the defense case, Mr. Bell's wife, Mrs. F's, testified that Sandebel called their house, told her he was in the hospital and asked to have Mr. Bell come see him. The defense agrees that in a sufficiency analysis that particular fact would have to be construed against the defense. Nevertheless, it's there in the record that Sandebel was part of the process of stringing Mr. Bell along and Sandebel was making himself still available to Mr. Bell. I submit because the government was concerned that Mr. Bell what might have been backing out or changing his mind about this. And finally, I would just want to point out to the Court. It's true that Mr. Bell admits during his testimony trial that he kept doing this and stringing the car along as Sandebel had urged him to because Mr. Bell wanted to make money off of car. But there's no evidence in the record at all that Mr. Bell was the one who approached Sandebel in the first place and said, I want to make money off of anybody or I want to sell firearms to make money. Does the Court have any further questions? Thank you, Rums. Thank you. United States versus Bell is submitted