it please the court my name is dan corellas i represent jose lopez fernandez i did not represent mr lopez hernandez issue in this case is straightforward where a statute was not satisfied the court said even if you're still being true excuse me even if you didn't take them across the border you're still being charged with taking them and transporting them and these are all crimes everything you did even though you didn't get them in canada and bring them over the border and defense counsel was very very clear that there was not an agreement to bring to there was an agreement simply to transport that is a different crime altogether there were also exchanges in which defense counsel represented that under the english language or the spanish language  transport not bringing to transport and it made it the government actually represented in its in its statement about the circumstances of the crime that the closest that mr lopez who handles got to the border was a quarter of a clear you're saying that you need ben as the nd circuit has interpreted that statute to me ask that this does not suffice yes your honor i am and the reason is because he never got within a would i would disagree that a few yards and a group a mile are one in the same as it went down in our brief you can walk for a few yards and hold your breath but you can't walk for a quarter mile and hold your breath  and so i agree it is a fair question to say where you draw that line what is geographic proximity is it a few yards is it is it a quarter mile and if it's a quarter mile how about a mile how about  i want to clarify that i wasn't involved directly one hundred percent from crossing these people from canada into the united states what i was involved in is being with these people who offered me to get some payment to transport  your desire to keep talking to counsel one through six containment and you understand that even though you didn't bring these aliens from canada to the united states you didn't physically bring them  guilty terms of the guidance yes on however that discussion did not occur with any reference to acceptance of responsibility under the guidelines i interpreted that comment to me further your honor i want to start with the issue of human understanding which is the the statement that mr silver read into the record you can understand that you committed a crime and you can stand up in court and say i want to take responsibility for committing that crime what you can't do though consistent with rule eleven is to stand up in court and admit i brought illegal narcotics into the country and even though the narcotics tested negative for the presence of anything that was controlled they they were they were talcum powder he could not probably be convicted he could and that's what the case has and that's why i want to make sure that i emphasize our argument with respect to this this twenty one year old who's in a federal courtroom by himself he's not a native english speaker he's not from this country and was listening to his delay or say things like he just wants to make it clear that as he did not ring as the rich language sets he did not as far as the english language and the spanish language goes but he brought according to the nd circuit that that cannot be a knowing cleat under federal law for this particular defendant with this level of education and this