making a decision based on a three elements analysis not the th knowledge element so could i could i ask you i'm i really have this question for both you and for counsel be arguing in our last or earlier you case the taste i'm looking at race and the court says at the beginning right before part too granted sure sure ari to consider whether  prosecutions under the statutes nine hundred and twenty two g the government must prove that the defendant knows of his status as a person barred from possessing a firearm so what i want to explore is whether you understand that to mean in this instance that the person knows that he's of an ex felon that he had been convicted of a crime for which the punishment was more than a year or whether you his cause is calling for knowledge of that as an excellent you can't have a gun i mean those are two different things a lot of these people are perfectly aware that they've spent more than a year in prison for a criminal conviction that whether they know the nd thing whether they know that the conviction that they can't have a gun the proof would be more extensive in a case like that so i want to know what you think bit more on that and my understanding is there anything that they have to know that they belong to the relevant prohibited class in relief the petitioner in that case was an undocumented immigrant and he didn't realize that he was not documented in the group he didn't realize that the particular class he belonged to and so my understanding is that he is that a defendant on another twenty two g case such as mr jones has to know not just that he's a  the government cites a phone call where mr mr jones talks about someone needing a foid card find someone who has a ford you know could be in this is basically the intention of the evidence it could be that mr jones dot he was allowed to have a gun because he didn't have a phone card and that is not the requisite scienter necessary for nine hundred dollars conviction under he said i understand it and but why you wanted a fair inference if you've signed your name on that old chief stipulation that yes you know it at the time you signed it but you knew it back when you were spending several years in prison to back when you committed the the later offense of being a felon in possession of a firearm would you think it's kind of one of those things that's completely outside it will be a jury actually thought you'd mention spending know which way we ought to read the supreme court's opinion what what's the point of this knowledge requirement if the knowledge requirement is always going to be satisfied by an old chief stipulation and the commonsense fact that if you were  and state prison that's judge hamilton said that's a big event in your life unless you have some reason to think that there's some ambiguity in one of the other subsections of nine hundred and twenty two you know there's the misdemeanor of domestic violence subsection there's the unlawful alien subsection there are quite a few of them and maybe some of them would yield greater ambiguity than this particular one does this one doesn't seem like to be all that hard for the government to prove if it's the narrow reading but but of course that the d issue is if there's a stipulation if that satisfies a knowledgeable requirement and this is i do think it's a question the court will have to grapple with it's  you receive stipulation would not prevent the defendant from contesting knowledge of for example he was in one of those categories where it's not clear whether he ha perfectly legitimate as i read rates but the question is if the evidence is only the old she stipulation plus the common sense that this is unlikely to be free  it mr allen had adequate notice and in this case at the p s has shown he did have mental difficulties and the indictment didn't put him on notice that he would have to contest his more so we'll we'll consider it but i think we need to stop now because we're rather over time and we will move to ms bo pick a bone with you here because rule twelve used to use the term waiver in a somewhat prio law no sense of the term in the rules has since been amended just to clarify that it never really was an intentional relinquishment of a known right could just took an issue off the table it's always been capable of being overcome by good cause and it really when all is said and done winds up much more like a plane error problem thought that we were looking at a three element of offense and then the supreme court said actually no you're looking at a four element offense so i can i think of a very strong argument for plain error review and i'm completely satisfied under cotton and other cases that this is not a jurisdictional flaw but i don't think it's waiver either yes your honor i understand that point we were making the waiver argument based on the fact that mr you know the trial had taken place and number person barred from possession of firearm i have trouble reading that sentence as calling for something less than knowledge that you are a person barred from possessing a firearm a for one of any of the reasons that nine hundred and twenty two g happens to enumerate and your briefs assumes that you just have to know you're a felon you don't have to know that felons  and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm when i would say i would focus on that the defendant knew he belonged to the relevant category a person at that that's just in he here at the category as he's a foul and been convicted of a the imprisonment of more than one here we don't believe the hate call for anything more than showing the defendant knew that he was a felon and unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance so again you don't have to know that those people can't own guns you just have to know that you're an addict anything other than that the it was necessary to know which category you're and it's not necessary to know that especially that being in that category has the effect of barring you from p in a lot of cases perhaps even mr jones's case would satisfy the broader reading he convinces his girlfriend to lie under oath and claim the guns were hers well that would suggest knowledge that you're a person who shouldn't have guns seems to me you don't know that that is impossible burden for the government just a little harder than just showing that you know that you're an addict or you know you're a felon or you know you're an illegal alien or whatever exactly yeah so he said you pretty easy one to show you did your honor and to that point we believe here that the instructional error and the alleged errors did not affect mr jones light most favorable to the united states mr jones knew that he was about and there is additional record of evidence that shows he knew about his status as one of the you know somebody who had i mean i'm to take the devil's advocate on the other side now he had drug and alcohol addiction problem to have some mental issues why shouldn't he have the chance to show that he didn't know that he was in a primitive status this week you know and i believe there are a couple points to respond to that as we noted in our brief we believe in this case mr jones invited any error as to the sufficiency of the evidence the district court was required to accept a stipulation under the constraints of old chief the government was not able to present further evidence of its prior felony convictions so mr jones is the wine who sort of kept kept these issues out of the trial  in particular that prior conviction from awful possession of a weapon by a felon in state court from which he was sentenced to four years imprisonment so it's if the government position that because mr jones invited t that right you know your honor i would not say that i think that this is a very unique circumstance where the stipulation has to the fact of the prior felony is so closely related  this idea of knowledge and status and then in combination with that you also have the old chief issue where the government is compelled to stipulate and the court is compelled to accept it so i wouldn't say that any supreme court decision what would create to any defendant who would be interested in actually offering so if you have any regrets which it which i agree to that your honor in a situation like this where mr jones clearly has made a strategic trial decision to keep the evidence of  adds an extra sentence essentially talking about knowledge completely separate from the pardon there can and with regard to johnson in that case it's distinguishable because the evidence was overwhelming about he might have done in a different scenario was inappropriate in this case i think we're going to have to wrap up pretty quickly because we're over time again well unless the court of the questions are nothing further all right most thank you very much thanks to