relatively minor it's simply an individual who was instructed not to proceed fast down any national park trail when the national park rangers were going to investigate individuals walked out of park and instead if you can answer yes yes he went back down the trail and he spoke to the individual who was going to be investigated however if i'm just going back down to the field well not exactly right because the the testimony that was presented was that number one no one knows exactly what was said between are a lot of other people that's why i left the government presented the testimony of the individual who was mr booker was talking to which happens in all of the what that individual did was right where and when the park rangers proceeded back down the trail and when that individual saw all those park rangers and mind you before he saw those park rangers you've been talking to my client had not walked around he had not turned away yet not done anything and there was plenty of time for that individual if he had actually been told that they were coming to a rescue and he wanted to obstruct that investigation that's we have done something that's fun but that's not the inference that can be made from that discussion beyond a reasonable doubt considering all of the facts that were made at that testify to because he didn't do anything to escape he didn't walk down fact on the he did nothing until he saw the park rangers knew he had lied to the rangers the night before he knew he had drugs on them and he knew he might be in trouble he knew those things when he walked out of the trail and when he sees a park ranger coming further down the trail for him that is something he knew understand that i'm not thinking you know i'm not so young myself but even the park ranger testified that it would take a healthy person in medium age four or five hours to hike out of there and he hiked out with everybody else including my client was very young and he knew he possessed every piece of information he needed to know to know that he was in trouble without one word being said from my client and without any linkage between what my client said in fact there's negatively didn't turn around and walk away he didn't do anything when my client had all that time to talk to him he did nothing he only did it when the parkways walked out and he saw them and possessing the knowledge that he already did and that's not a reason and we would see that it's not a reasonable inference evidence is that under the regulation it is not enough that i've defended created a situation with interfered with the performance of the park ranger it has to be an intentional interfere so the fact that he walked down the trail and spoke to this in this individual and as a rangers testified well then we thought we might walk on the trail because we thought there might be something going on that is not enough by this own courts definition of said because all these other park provisions have section eight to failure to abate that that's the section in that case you could have been convicted on the real fun majority decision does not control this case at all if you're honest dissent actually it's much more also submit that just by going back down the trail keep change the equation and that he changed the took away the prize from the rangers because it forced them then to go back down the trail to that when he's hiking up this whole trail and all the sudden he's contacted by the defendant and only when the rain the rangers then get to his point then all the sudden now he's thinking so i think the that jacobs had a reason to think when he saw the rangers because he knew he had lied to them like before but the point that i think i tried to make and i prefer is that he had jacobs had no way of knowing if the rangers found out that he gave them f identity and last when put you went down the trail he told them that they were going to rescue because he had successfully gotten rid of the rangers the night before right they throw him some identity they went away they confiscated some al from some of the respect to your dissent because i read you the stand a number of times and i think i understand it but i think your dissent was based on the difference between the failure to act in the lobbying case and i think what you were saying in that cases dealing with these is consistent with what i have here two quick points you know i would cite you to page nine of the transcript which is excerpts of record fatal eleven which talks about how he was taken to the hospital he was there for three hours and then  affording to the officer of the range who identified him at the hospital when he realized that the rangers were going the way he got well and i think that's where the whole faking issue came out of and that's on top of page nine and as for your honor i again go back to the same thing the crying is intentional interference is a specific intent crime that has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the government not by the defense the ever even if the court can make an inference our position is that inference