of affirmative evidence of consent to reapply his case would have been stronger but i don't think that's table here because i don't think surveillance floors requires i don't think it requires an affirmative you know but in order to determine whether or not the jury instruction was the wrong of the jury instruction as opposed to harmless error in that case and i think that's not just that's not a different the mistress was on oh has here which is his his there was was certainly not harmless there was no evidence in his case that apply for permission to reapply for admission into the united states did he file an i two twelve with the attorney general or with the department of homeland security and based on the attorney general was sponsored did he then receive a visit from the state department and it makes perfect sense that the jury instructions been focused only on the first part of that question because of course if the a g t did not give the defendant instruction that with specifically requested and that noted the argument the counsel's making today which is consent is required before person can reapply for admission into the united states if the government has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that mr stoller the no did not have this consent you must find him not guilty that's that is your volume two three three five he gave the instruction that the defense requested he broke apart that equation and presented that to the jury in this case and i also wanted to point out that there are two checks when determining whether or not a defendant has filed an i two twelve was given in this case and the district court actually went above and beyond in clare and made the clarification that the defense specifically requested and the fact that the jury came back with a not guilty verdict i think must mean that they credited  database that the jury instruction given you refer to permission to reapply i don't mind standing is that it gave the model instruction and then clarified that particular  is probably confused for the jury but they were able to understand what the district court was saying which was you know if you don't here's the government's burden here's what the elements are and the government can talk you know all day long about the fact that he was here illegally that he didn't he didn't have a visa from the state department but don't be confused by that the real issue was what's in the elements but the opposing counsel are doing this that don't elements were not elucidated because the permission to reapply statement was never articulated well but i think that supplemental instruction was the court's attempt to do just that i mean it was the language that the defense the exact language that the defense requested and he gave so i think that in this case the district court truly did all that he could do for the defense i think that's really the thing for all of the issues in this case is when you read the full record you can see that the district government talked about the claims database and what the claims database can do that evidence that evidence is just not in the record there's only there's only testimony about the claims data base as it has as it concerns the consent to re