well i think we've had a good discussion of received in the previous argument i would only say that you know going down the line st the indictment then other aspects of cases such as jury instructions and the like it's the same issues you know piers to me to be a plain error analysis and even though there was certainly error we know that now that we've had an authoritative interpretation of the statute that's not the end of the discussion and it's very hard on this record to imagine that mr betty's didn't know that he was a felon and indeed  he there's also evidence if it's relevant that he knew he couldn't have guns so so it's the plain error inquiry that seems most relevant here if i  approached the defenses considerably different in the given case and that and then there's a concern for us here today but it's hard we'll see how that really applies it seems like a theoretical objection more than one that applies to mr we've got a fairly clear record from the jury trial and he seems i mean it seems like a jury could easily found that he knew he wasn't supposed to have guns there's a bag you know he's signaling to people he's t away he's doing all kinds of things that that make it quite reasonable to think not only does he know that he has felony convictions or have them it's a relevant time but also that he wasn't supposed to have  so i answered with something about with one of the drugs or the materiality obviously i think those are very different things you cannot show just because there's a large quantity of drugs that the person with them and trying to sentencing if there had been an issue and also with uniquely prejudicial evidence which would have been presented to the jury my clients the length of your one hundred of gold for to a jury and have all that by answering the question looking to what this court has already held in united states versus williams there the court in a turban ingraham what it requires specifically held and i quote for williams that means the government would have needed to prove or he meaning williams to admit that he knew he had been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one a year so this court has already adopted the narrow our reading  and that's also just consistent with with a from what the decision help race did not turn nine hundred and twenty two g from a general intent crime into a specific intent crime or case did not hold that the knowledge requirement as to prohibit status was also a willful miss requirement where the government would have to prove the defendant knew not only that he was a prohibited person but that he fell within the relevant prohibited category but that the impact of falling within that category was that federal law prohibited him from possessing a firearm and again race cannot operate as an exception to the general rule that ignorance of the law is not a defense but that's precisely what the court would invite if it read read  expansively and more expansive reading the government respectfully submitted would be contradicted by what the court has already said in williams i just don't know i know how how much attention was paid to this issue i recognize that williams request that the court in an in line with all other courts that have addressed the issue to date interpret race narrowly as requiring the defendants knowledge only that he belongs to the relevant class of prohibited persons and not what the consequence is of belonging to that relevant class that judge would earlier in the argument you expressed some you expressed some skepticism about whether rule twelve  three really operates as waiver in the context of indictment errors i won't belabor that point too much other than just to cite this court's opinion and don't rd where the court held that the defendant waived his indictment claims by virtue of his guilty plea and cited united states versus wheeler that's the same case the government sites in its answer in brief and wheeler stands for the proposition that indictment errors such as failure to state an offense are non jurisdictional and by failing to all forfeited errors the outcome should not in any way be different than williams and don't rd just because this is a trial case versus a weak case at bottom the defendant carry the defendant bears the burden of establishing fair affected has substantial rights and i'm vis records there's no reason to believe that a jury would have reached reached a different verdict under a hafe st off the defendant signed a stipulation admitting that he was a convicted felon at the this of this fence and a reasonable jury could infer from that stipulation that the defendant knew he had been convicted of a felony particularly where he signed that stipulation by entering into that stipulation the defendant precluded the government from proving up his multiple prior convictions which here resulted in twenty one criminal history points placing him safely within the highest possible criminal history category even in his own sentencing memorandum didn't the defendant admits that he served two years of hafe defense that would have changed the outcome of the proceedings below and perhaps most critically the defendant even now does not claim that he did not know he had been convicted of a felony at the time of this offense conduct of a plane or a review defendant provides this court no basis to overturn the conviction below for that reason this court as it already has in williams don't there and then c s should affirm the judgment below and let the court has any specific questions related to the instructional  all right thank you very much thanks to both counsel the court will take this case under advisement and we will be in recess thanks to all we're sorry your conference is ending now please hang up