written in english the defendant returned was on trial for returning to the country illegally and when that issue came up the defendant stipulated offered evidence coming in no your honor i did not i i felt the limiting instruction only even further emphasizes the fact of seven are illegal place asking a question i don't see what was the point of the question it was of course to whether the instructions to your client were given to him in just an a complicated question because there was a stipulation right when i asked the question are these forms written in english and the answer is yes  priors might come into evidence to avoid that situation i stipulated are offered to stipulate which is all i can do but you said no you said you asked the question not to prove your client could speak english but to to whether he understood whether he was allowed to return to the country and that's when my understanding is that and that's why the district court allowed the seven priors not on the issue of whether your client can speak english is whether or not he understood that he had knowledge that he couldn't return to the country and i have to disagree with your honor alright and say that initially and in support of my my position initially the final thoughts that were offering the seven prior warrants to show that he speaks english and i pointed out that if you tell a person in a language he doesn't understand over and over again the same thing it's not going to make him understand that language it's like the old joke of the tourist gone to another country and asking the question in a louder and louder tone it just doesn't lead to an understanding of  language that he might not understand the court then changed basically chip and changed its reason somewhat for why the se warrants were allowed and changed it to mr urania must have gotten the idea at some point that he wasn't supposed to return to the country but i'd suggest to the court but that's a addressing that i think initially i think it's clear it's it's for english so he knows english ok so that's the reason they're admitted but they want to counter with well if you just repeated a statement over and over in english that doesn't show somebody knows english it doesn't show anything the court changes it so then now it's to show that he knows he's not supposed to come back into the country but he keeps coming back and maybe he'll get the idea is not supposed to come back into the country seems to me that his propensity it's kind of like saying once a drug dealer always a drug dealer and really i guess it comes down to the court's interpretation so  if you are willing to stipulate that your client understood english think so i saw the point as being to raise a question as to whether he had he he would know that he would could return he couldn't return to the country but you're right you're explaining to you why i think it's a really excessive that it was no longer needed a classic example of the old chief case a supreme court case that if there's a stipulation it takes away the things that needs to be proved and that it was really used as propensity evidence be it's further shown by how the government used the ovens a closing argument they say that this is somebody who's been removed over and over again there wasn't any argument he understands english because he was  takes me two seconds to say it maybe to read it at the second the court doesn't really know whether the juror read it or not and my response is well if it's not thought to be r why is it being put on the screen for the jury to read in the first place the expectation is if you put something up on the screen people are going to read it i think it's unrealistic to say to any kind of degree of certainty that nobody read that so not only is mr uranium an illegal reentrant it's somebody with a cocaine possession how can you get more prejudicial good morning may please the court the evidence of the prior deportations was never admitted by the district court for the purpose of establishing that the defendant understood english that was not the purpose for which it was offered it was not the purpose for which  admitted the district court said the very beginning that whether or not he understood english he was appearing before this jury with the use of interpreters to help him understand what's going on at this trial and the purpose  morning in english why not also give it and the language spoken by the deportees it just seems you know very odd to me if we really are trying to convey to someone that he may not return i mean in general it's just odd i suppose that's true that if if you're going to convey information to someone that you're deporting regarding the fact that or the ice agent who testified at the trial that agent fingerprinted him and had conversation with him shortly before the trial and it was all in english so the defendant it's understood some english and maybe that's why he wasn't given warnings at the time of his deportation in two thousand and eleven in spanish i don't know what the practice is on a regular basis i don't know that these warnings are ever given in any language other than english i'm not sure  you know really allowing all seven prior deportation engine evidence really does seem like of kill to me could the government not have made the same point with fewer than seven your honor i suppose it's possible that the governments could have gotten enough mileage out of the evidence with fewer than seven instances of prior deportations nevertheless the issue was was raised by the defendant's question of the witness on cross examination the government was should have been allowed to rebut that implication and i would also point out that the district court here in  four or three analysis found that not only was the evidence relevant to a specific factual issue that had been put before the jury by the defendant but there was also a fairly low probability of unfair prejudice when you think about it sure how that logic flows the propensity question the propensity issue is really about confusing coincidence with something that's more than coincidence and that's what happens when you have someone who is involved in a drug case perhaps who who the circumstances surrounding you know his involvement should have indicated in that he was involved in a drug deal he knew he was in a drug deal because he's previously been a drug deal once a drug dealer always a drug dealer i'm not even sure how that translates into into an argument for a propensity for just pacific type of crime lastly the  prior felony cocaine possession was not properly before the jury the government agrees that that was not properly before the jury but the district court found that it was harmless error of the defendant's argument in this case seems to suggest that an error of this nature is per se reversible error that it can never be harmless the argument is not specific to the facts of this case we would point out that  that the real issues in this case the major contested issues in this case were whether the defendant was the actually the person who was removed in two thousand and eleven so there was an identity question and there was some question about whether or  not he had ever really gotten permission to reenter because there was that was introduced through the evidence of a database that you know there's no indication that he had a legal status in this country however brief was the entire government exhibit eighteen in front of  time wise i don't know because it's three pages and number thirteen addresses to a number question and answer thirteen addresses the cocaine conviction that your honor the there were i think four pages to that exhibit which coincidentally are both in spanish and english the question got this is just because he was supposed to answer this was the one deportation that was where he was given the warnings in both languages your honor  there were four pages of this exhibit as i recall and there were questions from government counsel regarding the first page i'm not sure how many questions but it was at that point that the sidebar was requested and that's when this was revealed and clarified and corrected so how long was it up there i really don't know the district court believed that maybe the jury had seen it but that wasn't the basis of decision the basis of decision was not i didn't see it therefore the jury didn't see it the basis of decision was this was arms and so for these reasons we respect the request that this court from the judgment thank you  the government brought in at seven exhibits prior reentry and of course everything is going on right before trial starts i get handed the seven exhibits with that's the one on the bottom eight case was taken under advisement