next case for us this morning is twenty dash six thousand and twenty three united states versus ben ten theme mr kingston we are ready when you are cases that i also cited in my brief the st argument is of the district court on the government's motion in limine the which was opposed by the appellant and in the district court did not allow the appellant made a ruling not allowing  ellen to present evidence or testimony that he did not believe that his new mexico domestic violence conviction made him a prohibited person under federal law and i would submit that that evidence in the testimony  evidence nd i would argue to the court that the government did not meet its burden of proof is required by re hafe to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant the felon knew that his new mexico conviction prevented him from possessing a gun you know the problem with that particular point is that he didn't have to get in trouble we called him up and said hey you can't do it now you know yes i can and and what did it now i mean what  do you want to happen before somebody knows that they shouldn't have a gun with a previous conviction and he did appreciate the question your honor and i must admit as a read through the  record i cringed when i saw the several steps that he took to the specially what he ultimately did which is try to get the gun back i cringe to the eyes of my goodness what are you doing anyway but to answer your honor's question i think it's not what he learned subsequent to it's what he knew and believed at the time he purchased the gun and thereafter only those things came later and i don't believe there dispositive of the question under reid have has to you know what his subjective knowledge was of his status well all of your arguments turn on whether your interpretation of freakout is correct right that yes if if fail i would agree with your honor the and i will straightforwardly state that you know the number of circuits that have addressed the issue or a number of circuits that have addressed the issue come down on the side of the government defendant's knowledge of what his prohibited status is that you can present as it has at least one court put it if you have plausible ignorance you are a credible belief that you're not a prohibited person but that's evidence in testimony that can be presented even under you know the auspices of relief and should be considered by the court in a jury in a case of as this so i don't know if it's a one hundred presenting is that the jury instruction that was given by the district court over the defendant's objection was likewise a mis application of re hafe at least in the context of this particular case honour's if the court were to cite any of these issues in favor of the appellant then the conviction should be really reversed if the court were to find the government failed to meet its burden of proof in this specifically holds there was there's a link that the court reached but then the court qualifies or discusses the holding in dicta perhaps but does go into a fair amount of discussion state and working from that language in the relief decision your honour's i've also cited to the court several circuit court cases which i'd like to run through briefly with regard  in the united states versus davies case they cite in my brief that court focused on what the defendant specifically understood as to whether his criminal status prevented him from possessing a gun like williams the th circuit case the court found that a defendant might make out they said before a plausible ignorance defense when he can plausibly show that he did not believe that his prior conviction prevented him from possessing a gun and that court gave what i believe to be an example that is directly applicable to mr benton's case that is where a person as court stated were a person who was convicted only of a misdemeanor and sentenced only propose to probation with no jail time that that person might very plausibly and reasonably believe that he's not a prohibited person under the federal gun laws i all i would also submit your honor is that this court's decision in united states defendant might quote credibly allege unquote and should be allowed to defend this case by showing the jury that he did not know or understand that his status prohibited him from possessing a firearm from possessing a gun well now let me ask you this council what is its status that you're referring to the bit he couldn't possess the gun or that he been an illegal alien or he had been convicted of a domestic abuse charge well in terms in the terms of the rehab case and the circuit court cases the status is his in this case is conviction misdemeanor conviction in mexico for  domestic violence right and in some of the other cases the guy didn't know he was illegal that that's the case not he not that he didn't couldn't have been one that was a know in response to judge an accused question i would i was trying to say is it's not necessarily in the context of this case of arguing that i'm asking for a circuit split or an absolute ruling from the court that the a defendant under really hafe asked specifically no believe that he's not a prohibited person rather i'm saying if you look at this case this particular matter the kind of conviction that he had the kind of sentence that he received in that case then he should be allowed and should have been allowed to make out this plausible ignorance defense now he's certain you're you're arguing that ignorance of the answer that because he did not know that his domestic violence conviction made it illegal for him to carry a firearm that that's a defense well if i  i characterize it is ignorance of the law of defense and i think i'm taken down that road of you know ignorance of what is no defense and the appeal fails what i'm trying to say is that  the circuit courts are cited to the court and discussion which i've already partly presented to the court does allow for a person to present this kind of defense well if he had stayed if he had said i didn't know i had been convicted of domestic abuse i don't you know i wasn't even in town when the when they started their judgment i think you have something there that would be an easy case your honor and one of the cases i've cited to the court was where the defendant had pled guilty to a felony but he had been sentenced yet and so they said well he had a plausible ignorance defense  didn't understand what his status actually was reported to bet and he knew he had been convicted of domestic abuse yes mr downer's application i never was convicted right based on his obviously very sincere belief that he wasn't precluded from possessing the foreign obviously wrongly arguing to the court that is new mexico conviction allowed him to possess a gun he was clearly wrong do you know just follow up from your last statement by are you actually challenging i guess or it seems the supreme court has the knowledge applies to you have to know you possess the firearm and you have to know the you have the relevant status described in the statute so are you actually challenging either  are you saying that these threatening element wasn't met here or do you want to add a rd it requirement that the government has to show knowledge the fact that the relevan trying i'm trying to argue i don't know how effectively but i'm trying to argue is that in addition to that the court the supreme court would allow in the supreme court cases that i've cited to the court would allow this plausible ignorance certainly fine with the appellant but i'm not necessarily going that far well and i know you said that but that's the part attorney understand how how do you read what you're arguing for  go into knowing the relevant status because here the defendant knew his relevant status cracked he certainly did know his relevance ok so the only thing he didn't know was that that relevant  in your interpretation the only thing he didn't know was that the relevant status prevented him from possessing a firearm was strictly based on the facts of the case yes your honor when i could but that's not necessarily adding an additional requirement i guess is what you're saying that is the i think that it is in this case facts fact specific your honor i know that the johnson case will come to the end of my time but the johnson case talks about it in terms of an affirmative defense all right thank you thank you is asking for too many for rehab to require the government to prove that the appellant knew this that is in this case that he had been previously convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence and philip that we would run headlong into the maxim that ignorance of the law is no excuse finally have point out that rehab really expressively applied to the status element  mentions in agree that there are several cases that suggest that there is a plausible or reasonable ignorance that can be ready to do it and for instance the th circuit davies  so in terms of interpreting what the spring courts of i think your opposing counsel said that some of the language has may be unclear and that keith and i just wonder what you do with for example in describing what the question that they're answering the court says we're addressing that whether the government must prove that a defendant knows if it's to have a says the person running into the maximum ignorance of the law so to the extent that one sentence may be arguably big i believe me when reading context really clarifies that and you know that's also supported by other circuits reading that and how the other other cases our courts have interpreted that what that means ok so that's so i guess you're saying it is a mixed bag and no your honor i think i think rehab does is clear on the fact that it is limited to knowledge of ones that is not in it and it doesn't go beyond that was you know stating that it's not going to add an element just to add the knowing requirement that the defendant know he was convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic