and the ninth circuit i'm sorry this court has held in united states versus rivera's sanchez that it is possible to be convicted a simple transportation for personal use of marijuana for person additionally this court has held that if any can be guilty of this statute without ever possessing marijuana in the first place therefore given the statements in the conviction documents and as we know based on the this isn't a question aimed at attacking your position i'm just kind of lost trying to figure out this is a conviction for offering transform and as you say there's case law that says you can be convicted of that prancer porting without x offering a transport without actually having had possession and so the problem posed for you by that is how can you say that this conviction necessarily involves possession if you can in fact i'm sorry the board of immigration appeals has held that it is possible excuse me  it has been held that the used the modified categorical approach to analyze conviction documents and in that case the conviction documents clearly stated that the defendant was convicted of heroin in looking charge that is the statute that he is alleged of committing and the factual basis for how he committed that and what he pled guilty and it provides that deliberation charges a class a felony and the conviction looks like  not part of the stage which leads me to infer and again this is a guess that this fourth amended information as a result of the deal so the amended information includes something which isn't provided for in the statute and wouldn't otherwise be specific terms notably for his own use that otherwise doesn't have any place or doesn't derive from the statute and wouldn't seem to me to make any sense unless somebody had in mind the possibility of qualifying for the exemption that's an issue here that's charges is a personal use crime might wise and that fall squarely within the exception and why does the government's good and well this court as well as the board have held that transportation is not an offense involving possession and felony convictions do not fall within the personal use exception which was meant to you you know only they do is they draw a line and they say that when looking at the most natural reading of the statute and its contacts with the i neg that this what this simple proper person to use exception was only me for misdemeanor simple possession offenses and nothing greater than that now there is exceptions it's not just possession there are and the reason they draw that line is because they help and matter dave which i  there are some drug paraphernalia convictions that would qualify because they're so closely related to possession and they are treated as not know what was charged here in the information and it puzzles me as much for the government size does for the actual charge appears to be offered to transport marijuana for personal use for your own use i don't understand that charge but that's what it is it was probably negotiated how is that not in the sensual element of transportation so that you can you can transport it and you know or you can offer in fact in this case it was offered to transport without actually taking possession or hold of it and the reason  here is that the charge was for his own use and if that weren't there i think this is an easy case i have no trouble with the proposition that transport is something different from possession but it seems to me if the charge transport for your own use you're talking about picking up the bag and walking someplace and bingo only did actually transporting spaf around so i'll offer to carry my bag containing less than thirty grams someplace else how is that a different crime from possession well nevada treated separately and that is why in theory it is well that this information specified it was for his own use so and the statutory provision i just read doesn't say other than a single misdemeanor offense it's a single a founts i look at the board's decision in this case and it emphasizes that transporting controlled substance is inherently more dangerous than simple possession because transportation agent can see among the substance from law enforcement and elevates the risk the drugs will be used in moving vehicles creating a danger to the public in the abstract i understand that but it's not possible right and in a broader sense no but you have to look at how the state has chosen to treat the crime separately which is a very important germination for the board when it's drawing a line  identities these types of remedial clauses have always been held to be for simple possession offenses and nothing greater than that and when you start and that's that's across the board that's that's the how is this different from simple for his own use i understand of and has a law that covers a lot more i do stand than played do i think it was a class b felony i also understand that the sentence was suspended and so knowing what we know about th but what's important is that that segue right when you do that you don't get in danger other people how it's not asking about him using it he's not he's not actually smoking dope while driving he's not under the influence he's carrying it how is that any more dangerous than driving down the street without the bag and this front seat around a different city well there's a potential to hell use it while transport but that's not what he was convicted of well he wasn't convicted of transfer transporting at all in this case so we have no involving possession so maybe that's the easiest way to decide the case he offered to do something he didn't do it he never present in the judgment of conviction again normally would sit in judgment controls not be not the charging documents and create a figure out what would we make of this that is true and at the risk of of confusing not intended or understood by congress to apply to offenses that are significantly more significant three more that's the language i was quoting yeah and then if you cited for the proposition that this is limited let's focus on that proposition alone when it says misdemeanors yes felonies no yeah i just want to go to no no no no just tell me where it says that what doesn't say that exact words b decided by the board of immigration appeals specifically states that the exception is not limited to possession of marijuana per se and additionally in that case they state that a crime involve possession of thirty grams or less of marijuana for personal use if the acts that led to the aliens conviction were closely related to such conduct when we know now based upon the categorical and modified categorical analysis that we can't look at the acts that occurred were stuck with the conviction documents and looking at the conviction joc humans what the petition was convicted of was thirty grams or less of marijuana which that's what the information says why do we believe that's the one that controls opposed to the judgment which doesn't make reference to that your honor it would be unfair to talk hold the respond or answer the petition or to a judgment of conviction that he has no opportunity to  do you have a year to address potential issues with a judgment of conviction and whether it's not normal practice to include the factual allegations and a judgment of conviction the base of the crime itself is what's included but to wit and how it was included is not normally included in a judgment of conviction that regularly filed with the offense the category of crime and the colloquy between a judge or district court judge and a defendant in district court it is not simply a judgment of conviction and it is the record of conviction as a whole that can be looked at in a modified categor scripture and if and the board of immigration appeals in this case stated that when they made their holding that based on the modified categorical analysis that this was a conviction for marijuana and they're correct and if they if the record of convictions stopped there then this would be an easy case to decide that it doesn't it goes forward to say thirty grams or less of marijuana for personal use which falls squarely within the exceptions of court ability so the board of immigration appeals in doing their analysis did look at the record of conviction however they stopped their