to him by the names to chirk guests since that is the name he has been referred to throughout the proceedings and there's all the evidence in the case although it is an ali so the reason that we're here is because this court has granted a certificate of appeal ability as to the issue of whether or not the united states have jurisdiction over the lucky star with respect to mr statistics case in this case so this case will have limited presidential impact but the issues in this case unless stand jurisdiction under the m d l yeah requires two considerations one is a constitutional dimension the other is the statutory requirements the constitutional dimension requires that the application of u s jurisdiction over the vessel in question not a stand to due process which the court has held means that there must be a sufficient  established by the prosecution between the conduct to be condemned and the united states and that inquiry is a mix question of fact and law that is individual as to each defendant is there sufficient connection statutory aspects of eight there must be at least one of the statutory requirements met in order for the us to meet the statutory element of jurisdiction not case consent of the flag nation is one of the several possible ways that the us meet the statutory requir however notwithstanding how the government meets the statutory requirements for jurisdiction there is this overlay as the court has referred to it and overlay a requirement that the prosecution not violate due process and a sufficient nexus isn't net necessarily by any of the statutory factors being met instead a nexus requires an individual look at the defendant's conduct and whether or not there was a nexus between that conduct and the united states  answer which was whether the u s had jurisdiction over the lucky star which is the best and that has to be interpreted to include any aspect of jurisdiction and that was raised in the district court by the petitioner and in fact in the petitioners request for a certificate of appeal ability he essentially raised four interrelated issues all of which goes to the jurisdiction of the united states having granted a certificate as to whether there is jurisdiction it would seem clear that the court is entertaining both the constitutional issues and statutory issues and in this case the constitutional issue has not been adequately demonstrated here you just report the love in the proceeding below five petition and the court did address the merits of nexus and in so doing it totally erred by concluding that there was insufficient nexus here because the drugs in question on the lucky star were intended for alternate distribution into the united states that factual findings which was not the least on an evidentiary hearing is clearly in contradiction to the district court's own prior holding after a three day evidentiary hearing on nexus that the drugs in this case were not intended to come to the united states had not been proven by the government by a preponderance of the evidence that there was an intention to bring this hashi's to the united states rather the district court in its initial evidentiary hearing had ruled that the ten of the royal canadian mounted police that a seventy ton of hasheesh going to canada would have ultimately some portion of that would end up in the united states based on the actual a connection between satiric s and the seventy ton conspiracy to distribute hashish for the lucky star however the reason that ak factual finding which then was inadvertently actually not stated correctly by the district court concerning the seventy ton load he was convicted only of the distribution aiding and abetting the distribution of this two point four times offload and all of the acts that the district court pointed to that the government reiterate particular girlfriend section well considering that i mean you might want to say that you would ask us to expand this is typical of appeal ability but it's very hard to understand your representation good morning me please the court my name is lewis davis an assistant u s attorney in this district and with trial counsel below in this matter with respect to the next question let me address three reasons why i believe the court should not address the question and why should the f district courts denial of junks twenty to fifty five first we believe this is where we should affirm why the district court's denial of the twenty to fifty five and not grant this appeal right with respect the next question i believe that question was fully resolved by this court defendant has asked the court to make a distinction between the two point four times in the seventy times just to set the factual scenario straight there were seventy times in a mothership the plan was to offload all seventy times because of bad tempers and bad weather only two point four times and that hasheesh was offloaded right as judge walker held in the nine the twenty to fifty five the issue of nexus it is addressed to the question of at the time the two point four counsel makes reference to these definition of nexus in conn and suggest that the district court in conducting its three d evidence you're hearing relied upon the wrong standard it's true that the district court did make a reference to con but it's also true that the district court articulated a standard which has been adopted by this court which is a sufficient nexus exists when it's not a transaction is aimed at causing criminal contacts within the us and where the plan for shipping the drugs was likely to have effect within the us all of which were clearly shown counsel misstates the showing in our brief that pages twenty to twenty two regarding the facts on which the district court relied not all of those connections occur after the offload some occurred while the plan was in process for the offload so we believe that the next issue was fully resolved by the court on direct appeal the court's already heard the sea away argument and the district court ruled that the issue were going up as was proved too late  with respect to the issue for which the c away was granted and take issue with the defendant's distinction here because the seal application did address four issues the spillway itself was granted as only one of them they are jurisdiction argument here your honor says that given the fact that the sea away addresses only the flag nation consent question and does not address it was not issued for the question of whether there is a nationality principle in that could be applied here we believe the court should affirm the district d specific title forty six provides that the failure to comply with international law shall not provide the defendant with a defense under the chapter so if the court and that analyzes the and macnelly were both american citizens mcnally was on board the lucky star the mothership transporting the seventy tons john managed the communications part of the conspiracy from the bay area here in radio communications with mcnally it was primarily on that basis in addition to others including meetings with undercover agents and telephone conversations here that addressed our brief twenty three through twenty two that the court concluded there with respect to the question of whether this d n a was granted exclusively as to flag nation consent we would differ with that the way even if it only pertains to the lucky star would pertain to whatever method of individual finding as to the defendant's conduct that that matters and not simply a legal issue therefore magic three although it purported to dispose of the issue of nexus with respect to the church has never reached the church has this conduct and cannot