it please the court my name is attorney justin conlon and i represent the petitioner mr mota and resolution of this case rests on specifically how the court frames the issue in this case a and the government have done is try to frame the issue in this case being what moral judgment what society make against someone who participates in the business of illegal drug trafficking regardless of how minor of a player they are in that business and framing the issue in that way they reach their conclusion but precedent from the supreme court and from this court including the decision that was issued last week and mendez says that that's not exactly how to frame the issue in this case what the issue should be is what moral judgment would society make against someone who commits the minimum necessary conduct to violate the statute issue here and as we argued in our brief to this court and for the agency below there are at least three ways to violate the statute without participating in the business of illegal drug trafficking and without engaging in morally depraved conduct in those three forms of conduct the casually sharing a small amount of drugs in private at a party with a friend making essentially a frivolous offer to sell drugs that one doesn't possess and has no intent to transfer as well as an innocent bystander to a drug transaction who for reasons of convenience essentially transfers and hands a bag of drugs from one person to another but has no personal interest in the transaction and makes no profit from the transaction and one important thing that we would point out is neither the b i a nor the government  brief they never challenge that the statute at issue includes this conduct and the reason why they do that is because they really can't regarding the innocent bystander example there's a specific connecticut appellate court decision state versus terrio where they upheld a conviction against the defendant who did exactly that in the case of united states versus savage this court specifically found that making a frivolous offer to sell drugs one doesn't have one minute left of the price in the savage case this court found that the connecticut drug sales statute specifically covers the types of frivolous offers and the casual sharer is covered by the plain language of the statute the statute specifically includes language that no person may give to another person any controlled substance someone who casually shares drugs in private gives another person drugs beyond that the connecticut definition of sale specifically says that any form of delivery of drugs counts as a sale and the connecticut supreme court of state versus webster held to the plain language of that failed definition saying every drug transfer is outlawed and the connecticut appellate court of state versus johnson going to trace amount an amount that insufficient to give the user base a sort of any effect a sale or transfer of that small amount is also a violation of the statute and the a and the government never really seriously argue how casually sharing a small amount of drugs in private which this court has said is more akin to simple possession than what people think of as drug trafficking but it's not pretty it's akin to simple possession at perhaps but not simple possession i guess i'm having trouble with figuring out how to conclude whether the knowing unlawful distribution of a controlled substance is an inherently reprehensible or why the be a was clearly wrong as you suggest in saying that because whether you give a small amount of crack to a friend or whether you sell it to an enemy it is conduct that exposes that person to to dangers and that's why we criminal narcotics so what's wrong with that way of the reaching the conclusion that the reached well one example that i would point to would be which is what i cited in the twenty a j letter which would be taking an  example that judge parker listed in the men that the surgeon which is essentially a distraught parent who finds drugs and disposes of them and if you add one minor tweak to that scenario where one parent finds the drugs become so distraught that they can't really move or do anything and says to the other parent hey i found these drugs picks them up takes possession give them to the other parent and says hey you dispose of these that transfer that giving is a sale of drugs under connecticut la reprehensible that it can't be a cia entity well i don't think you need to level up hypothesis you need to just look at the language of the statute and you need to look at the language of the connecticut supreme court decision and webster which says any delivery every instance of delivery or giving a drug from one person to another regardless of any other circumstance of giving or transferring a drug to another person is a violation of that's what the plain language of the statute says and that's what this or the connecticut supreme court said and again this court and mendez said that that scenario is not morally depraved and if you just add in one parent finding it and giving it to the other that is giving another drugs which is clearly covered by the plain language of the statute and the webster this and that's no more morally to pray than what the court looked at  and that kind of hypothetical legal magination was headed by the supreme court in the categorical approach and therefore the choice of the review should be denied starting with just his st argument the government knowledge is that giving less dangerous than marijuana there is a drug which is the reason why the controlled substance remove ability charge with the smith because the immigration judge agreed with us that there is a drug under the connecticut narcotics definition which the a specifically removed from federal controls which they have not done for marijuana so we would argue that the minimum necessary criminal conduct would be sharing a drug in private that's less dangerous than marijuana by the fact that that the d a removed that drug from federal controls the on that as we cited in our opening brief there's a decision from the a matter of jama cost twenty seven dollars einen decision for twenty two thousand and eighteen where the specifically said that the identity of the drug doesn't matter when determining whether a drug offense involves moral turpitude it matters the action that the defendant engaged in so even under beyond a precedent they said that the identity of the drug doesn't matter we also point out that the b i a again never you have one minute sure that it would be not fair for the court to uphold to be the surgeon under the treasury doctrine because again we argued from the beginning that this that this case is casual sharing and pointed to these decisions and the immigration judge the b i a the government in their opening brief even in this case i mean it's basically they waive this issue they never said in their briefing these casual sharing cases aren't relevant because it's marijuana and they have the opportunity to do that because we've been making that argument since the beginning and then regarding the possession versus sale we think that argument's a red herring because the the way of violating the statute is a means not and i'm not an element so whether you don't get in a sale whether you engage in a possession whether you give whether you distribute those are means of violating the statute so the fact that  helpful that is the last case on the calendar to be our good morning so i'll ask the clerk to adjourn court