thank you your honor oh good morning said my name is greg english i was appointed by this court to represent mr brown i also represented him at trial i'd like to initially turn my attention to count one the ruling occurred question three months before the trial in this case it added an element the prosecution must prove that the defendant knew not only that he was convicted felon but that he had the relevant prohibited status this is a relatively obscure issue it was not one that was on d the front page of the washington post if the federal relatively narrow class of people and the simple truth  are i was unaware of the change in the law are must solo practitioner i read that journals things that come out but there's a lag time before the news this case was disseminated the prosecution was also completely unaware of this change they were obligated if they knew about it to inform the court they did not in fact as is normally the practice in the district court the prosecutor's drafted instructions  if i had any objection to them i do not remember i don't believe i have a good faith basis to object to anything i know not that two extremely capable prosecutors with the government's so neither of the parties were aware of the change and an excellent judge was also unaware and so i respect was a man in the interest of fairness the court should consider this case on its merits and also in the interest of prosecution also claims and didn't then the stipulation include the knowledge element it includes the knowledge that he's been convicted of felony not that he was aware that his status of a rahane phrases is whether he knew he'd been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year not whether he knew that being convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year means that he can't possess a firearm that's a rd one as i understand it was the nd one which is whether he knew he'd been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year and the stipulation that joint appendix three o seven says exactly that your honor clearly he knew he was convicted been status means knew he may convicted of a crime punishable on more than one year of imprisonment not that he knew that that status meant he couldn't possess a firearm your honor our position is the prosecution was required to prove like my client who won the government exam it's a trial what was a ged certificate on his wall and a firearm where the gun was found he is not highly educated person and was a confusion a contrary position to the admissibility excuse me as to the element at trial appellant conceded not only the fact of the prior felony but that he knew that because of the prior felony he didn't concede that he knew he couldn't as a weapon right i believe i don't think he had to then he can he can say i believe that was the language if i could refer to that because i did have it with me  illegality but appellant at the hearing needed one of the stipulations we've entered into today and signs that my client was convicted of a felony and because of that he knew was he was legally impaired and could not have a gun in d so in addition to that concession your honor there has been no case that the government is aware of that has held that appellant must know essentially ignorance of the law is an excuse in the context of nine  cases in fact as your honour's noted if only require the additional element of the knowledge of the fact of the felony conviction which appellant has never as has never disputed and was part of the indictment admissibility based on staleness either conviction the only argument in the motion lemony that appellant made in the pretrial pretrial was that the two thousand and eight misdemeanor conviction was not time the time limit there and then says the same sort of prejudice analysis should apply here so i think that imports the staleness principle here we can argue about whether you should import from six and i do not but let that is that was his way of saying this is unduly prejudicial for those same considerations there which included statements well to the extent that there there an issue of staleness was raised at all that even six o nine does not have a bright disagree your honor in this case because the issue was both constructive for two reasons one because the issue was constructive possession of evidence that was contained in the same bedroom the probative value in this court has recognized that that the relevance of the prior bad acts depends on the reason for which it's offered and part of the reason was the fact that the defendant kept contraband had secreted contraband in the same exact room where the evidence was recovered in this case under the circumstances of this case the probative value didn't diminish with the the fact that the defendant had previously secreted evidence in the same location is highly probative that the defendant's ties to the evidence that was secreted in that location during the search warrant in this case dispute it was his room so it made perfect sense that his ammunition from lesson would have been in the room so either they're going to believe that the gun was his because it was in his room and he had plenty of evidence on a lot of evidence on that front or they're not i just don't see what the ammunition particularly something man stale and it's not even like you got another gun sort of off point it's very very old and it seems to me to focus squarely with in sheffield on prejudice and did nothing other than show like you said he has unlawful things in his room but that sounds like propensity to me your honor the fact that he secreted evidence and an ammunition may not be a gun but it goes with a gun and it was and condition seized in this case and the fact that it is the defendant kept contraband in his bedroom was a disputed issue challenge to the constructive possession of the gun as well as the other paraphernalia this court's analysis in other cases such as mcgill in site other cases but when the point is the intention to exercise dominion and control over contraband secreted in the same location that information that fact factor doesn't diminish with age the fact that he  conceal unlawful items well as your honor recognizes everything as a fact this is a fact specific analysis and judge i'm talking about your argument to me right now i don't see you weighing the stal this particular showing i don't think it would become stale because it is a question of the ties to back particular room as your honor is recognized in other cases residents can go on for decades and that is unique to this case that distinguishes i'd also note in sheffield it was the lack of further information about the context in which this court actually pointed as part of the reason why under the circumstances of sheffield it was not probative in the four  but right so you're definitely have your berlitz air analysis which was really really cursory in your brief but was a little surprised well it was overwhelming evidence there was a very grim that's that's it was a little uncomfortable because a lot of talk we have circuit precedent that things that are sort of just thrown out there are not developed we don't recognize as arguments but i read in the macro that you would have a more substantial harmless error argument somebody just announced s did analyze this particular issue but found based on viewing the facts that were at issue that it was highly probative of the defendant here and now so do you want to just give me a minute on your time was there an argument so i can knowing that you are yes as as your honor recognized this was overwhelming and there was overwhelming evidence in this case there was a fingerprint found on i believe it was the slide as well as the magazine in this case that was identified as as appellan the there was evidence from both his prior conviction for who had cocaine back tied him to the drugs that was that was located in all the paraphernalia that was located in the room and the testimony from the expert witness which tied all of those items to drug trafficking and the jury in this case certainly didn't misuse the evidence because even it's it's acquittal counts for finally judge hogan gave limiting instructions both at the time the stipulations were admitted which again were very minor and brief references in the overall record and and at the time of final instructions and i would also note that it was not neither stipulation both of which were admitted through stipulation or large course since of the pick of the case they were briefed references both at the time they were believe two days and the jury returned a verdict after being retiring on the afternoon returning the following mid morning thank you there are no other questions we in this case so i and causing let me say thank you for giving me the opportunity to argue on behalf of my clients in this case i appreciate your edge thank you counsel thank you to both counsel will take this case under submission mr english you were appointed by the court to represent appellant in this matter and the court wishes to recognize your representation of appellant thanks your honor