appears to be that so long as one can imagine a hypothetical sense in which official misleading could have been more specific that the defense of entrapment by a stop was foreclosed that's not the law there's little immigration form that told the defendant you must contact the counsel that before you try to reaction and what the court said one of the things the court said is that it appears that the defendant did not comply with that sentence and that affected the court's decision and whether he could rely on entrapment by stoppel there is no explicit requirement conditioning the ability of illegal aliens to purchase firearms in this form that form forty four seventy three that the ammunition for which the government didn't offer any evidence about when they had or hadn't been purchased what we do know though is that the store employees testified that it was the time that they sell at the shop and that mr baji have not purchased anything there is misleading information from the government official or in this case but the government official in the form as alleged by mr of energy there has to be reasonable reliance on the part of the individual and that's partially true judge this i don't there's no doubt that what happened inside the gun store with the blind leading the blind but again and one of them why people there's a gun store employee you know is an authorized agent of the united states before he ever engaged in pulling out the form four seven three but in contrast mr barry in the record does state this he had an immigration lawyer and had other sources he showed no interest in finding out what the legality of the purchase would be other than his statement that he went to this guy this gun dealer and got this particular information and in contrast it seems a little unbalanced sure all ammunition the possession of the ammunition is a separate and distinct harm and separate from mr verities argument about the four four four seven three or any conversations with the federal firearms licensees eleventh which is not something that i can point to anything in the record to defend him because it wasn't something that came up during trial or at the in the proceedings on the new trial is it is there anything to that effect in the record actually in front of us there may have been something in the affidavit in support of or in opposition to the motion to suppress as to why the f b i originally became involved with mr babaji and i have to state for the benefit of both sides i was asking that question out of curiosity i'm not sure of his legal relevance yeah i would have though that mr rather gee we do know he's been in this country for twelve years with no legal problems has a degree from arizona state university has been gainfully employed is married mr batter gee did not go to any of the places that one can go in the united states to get a firearm and avoid the form forty four seventy three he didn't go to a gun show he didn't take use the classifieds he didn't buy one of the dozens of magazines pages and pages on how people can obtain firearms the evidence is that he went to the shooting star store because he knew about the form forty four seventy three and he knew that the form drew a line between permissible transactions and an illegal transactions that was this purpose for going to the store also the federal firearms licensees testified that they relied on the form and in so doing were confused about the law and were confused about the law when they he was reluctant to do so i think he was almost conceding that there mike there might be a case where you could have official misleading but no reliance and in that case the conviction to stand with your answer i believe that the defendant official misleading must show both official that it was in this way and that he reasonably in genuinely relied on what the government told them there is no evidence of lack of reliance on this record i think that the notion that you went to a shooting range which may or may not be illegal it's hard for me to believe that it is but the fact that he went to a shooting range i do not think in any way suggests that he was not looking to the form and not looking to what the firearms  licensees told him to figure out whether or not he would complete the transaction again i go back to his undisputed testimony that he went to the store he understood what the forms purpose was and he understood the form would tell them whether or not he quit or couldn't purchase calendar is united states versus