You can read David's handiwork here (Scribd was acting buggy).
Here's the well-written intro from the motion:
In this drug and gun case, the core allegation against Mr. Myrie was that he brokered a deal between Ian Thomas and Alexander Johnson (the confidential informant).1 The government sought to prove its case by presenting: (1) the testimony of Alexander Johnson; (2) tapes and transcripts of calls and meetings; and (3) the testimony of its case agent, a research specialist dealing with the phone calls, and the police officer who seized the gun from James Mack’s car on December 10, 2009. The defense in the case was that Mr. Myrie did not know he was going to a warehouse on December 8 (conceded by the government); did not know that he was going to see cocaine (conceded by the government); and, once in the warehouse, presented with cocaine, did not then or at any later time, reach an agreement to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. Further, Mr. Myrie did not willfully participate in or have knowledge of the drug transaction on December 10. Therefore, the gun that James Mack possessed on December 10 was not reasonably foreseeable to Mr. Myrie, especially given the fact that he had never met or even heard of James Mack before. Assuming, arguendo, that an agreement was reached, the defense argued in the alternative that the government did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Myrie was not entrapped.What do you think -- any chance of success?