good morning and please the court my name is sean riordan i represent mr gilmore sandra gilead's represents mr hemsley i'm going to take about four minutes and cover the factual background as well as the state law compliance standard and our plan is for to take about four minutes and cover the evidentiary hearing and burden issues plainly stated california medical marijuana law and it's full and strict application requires nothing more than substantial compliance and that is the standard that the court should look to as to the threshold question of what law applies when a district court faces a question like the ones that we have presented in the motion below  you're i mean you didn't even concede it but you didn't put any evidence to the contrary no we didn't although if the case were reminded i believe it would be appropriate to look more closely at the question of whether it was in fact federal land however district judge made that finding the right on an incomplete record your honor on honor we had we've never had a hearing where that issue mattered at the initial trial was just as it was federal land so is there any california l anything in the briefings and i california says go ahead and do whatever you want to federal land no and certainly that would pose an interesting question all and it's on your honor all right guys mcintosh makes what what happens if you happen to grow marijuana medical marijuana in your neighbor's land if you happen to grow it on state public land if you happen to grow it on federal land but you know a lot of that size says a lot right the federal law has th federal law doesn't care whether it's inadvertent so the only question would be whether mcintosh says anything about intent but it doesn't it doesn't it doesn't affect in fan standard a federal law that your honor just cited concerning the federal and federal authority over its own property rights of course is relevant to a supremacy issue we're not looking at that here what we're looking at under the essential inquiry under macintosh is whether state law would provide a defense against prosecution mcintosh emphasizes this point that the federal government prevents the state from implementing its own medical marijuana laws if somebody who cannot be prosecuted in state court because they would have a defense under medical marijuana law is prosecuted in federal court but how does that apply if it's not a state law a state land i mean if it's i mean how does this medical mirrors california medical marijuana law how does that apply at all here again it goes to the inadvertence question and the fact that the state law standard is substantial compliance if california so so california is so so i think if you're arguing about whether it prevents california from giving practical effect to its law as if the federal government can stop people who inadvertently grow marijuana on federal land is that your view it's i wouldn't pose the question that way our view is  california medical marijuana law would provide a complete defense at trial because of the mistake that was made here the inadvertent presence on federal land that still allows the defendants to substantially have complied with california law but where does it actually whether the federal government can use money to him for us federal drug law when someone is planting marijuana in federal land i mean that's really the only question right because mackintosh only said as is is interpreting the appropriations writer yes your honor the question is actually however whether state marijuana and they have a medical marijuana defense and they present at the threshold evidence making out a prima fascia showing that they did not intend to violate the state's medical marijuana laws then the burden would shift to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they did not substantially comply and that they in fact had the intent to violate those laws and so if you start from that building block th the inquiry is substantial compliance and specific to conspiracy this is stanch will include compliance and corey encompasses an intent inquiry then the inadvertence matters completely and the same goes for the substantive count where if you're looking at the substantive count you again look to california state medical marijuana law to determine whether somebody to thought that they were on private property and the record is replete with information about the people who organized this growth thinking that it was on private property that if that's true then they in fact did comply with california medical marijuana law so i can see how that might help you in california state court but i don't see how that prevents the federal government from prosecuting use of federal lands and i think that creates a interferes with the i mean where we're only looking at whether the expenditure of funds prevents california from giving practical effect of its laws and if what's happening is growing marijuana in federal land it's hard to see why prosecuting good morning and they please the court greg broderick for the united states i think you've got it just right judge is a coup de and edelman the question here is whether this spending limit as interpreted by this court in mackintosh that spending limit only applies only bars the prosecution of the manufacture of marijuana in a way that is authorized by state medical marijuana law they don't even argue that page six of the reply they make it clear that they're not arguing that  authorizes the growing of marijuana on federal land and as you pointed out the prosecution of marijuana crimes especially called the vision on federal land does not prevent the state from implementing whatever state laws it has about medical marijuana i have a lot to say about this i've we've briefed extensively i'm happy to answer any questions that the court might have but i don't i don't know that we need to add anything beyond that i don't think  want to respond briefly to the government's first point about the prevention of the state implementing its medical marijuana program again mcintosh look specifically to whether state law would allow for the person who's being charged in federal court if they were in state court to raise a defense against prosecution this is it penn site eleven eighty six and eleven eighty seven of the macintosh case that is the core of the court's in corrie the core of the court's inquiries not looking to federal control over it  land now obviously that has some potential appeal here i don't believe that the panel would be asking the questions it is if it didn't we recognize that but nonetheless the inquiry has already been set out in the cases so far to have looked at the bipartisan appropriations rider that that we're talking about here and that inquiry is a state line corey we already know federal law prohibits the cultivation of marijuana no matter where it is whether it's on federal land private land state land what have you now to get back very briefly to the issue of the nature of the land again there has never been a hearing before the district court where this question mattered at trial this was not an element of the crime and so there was no reason for the defense to contest it it's simply not the basis for the district court's decision no i'm sorry your honor i'm talking about at the initial trial where there was a mistrial and it was the basis of the district court's decision but the district court erred by failing to analyze state law and assuming that simply because the land was federal that that precluded the rest of the inquiry now i would refer the court to the supplemental expert of record sixty nine  if this doesn't illustrate the sort of factual issue about the nature of the land i don't know what does you can see in that there's a yellow rectangle sticking out from the east that indicates a purported demarcation of the federal boundary here that you know the oddness of that boundary in and of itself sitting on the map like that ought to give the court pause as to whether