in the violation of eight u s c thirteen twenty four a one a one a one there's two provisions in thirteen twenty four a that make bringing aliens to the united states illegally thirteen twenty four a one a one is a felony it in its hinges on location if you bring an alien to the united states as long as you bring that alien to a designated port of entry or you call ahead to the ins and a range of meeting you have not broken the law what happened cuba came in and it was stipulated that the defendant's intent was to bring these people to the ins that wasn't a crime under thirteen thirteen twenty four a one a one congress came back and said well let's make thirteen twenty four eight to thirteen point four eight to hinges on permission so it doesn't matter where you take these aliens now as long as you don't if you don't have permission it's a misdemeanor so these are closely related statutes but one is a felony and one is a misdemeanor now thirteen twenty four eight two and become valentini with aggravating circumstances but why this is important why this is important is that if this court doesn't hold the government to its burden of proof to make it prove it to make it submit evidence of location when it's dealing with a thirteen twenty four a one a one case then what they have done is it's possible for them to take behavior that only a rises to a misdemeanor and turn it into a felony for instance i live in i have a friend in the philippines he wants to claim asylum in guam i understand that under thirteen twenty four eight two if i take that person to guam in africa harbor and i am ok with and suddenly because they don't have to prove location the critical element that distinguishes thirteen twenty four and a one a one from thirteen twenty four eight two i'm suddenly faced  felony is a much more serious so without forcing the government to show at least some evidence that mr funding had with if it intends to take these people to a place other than a designated port of authority or had specific specific with a tent intent not to call ahe chinese woman pay somebody fifteen hundred dollars to take them on a fishing boat to deliver them into the arms of the ins they could have been going to dollar full and got blown off by the wind or they could have been going through some other beach but why why does the government have to allege which beach they were going to write  that's a good question judge goodwin i i don't think that they have to show a particular location but what they have to show is that they were not they  did they have to swell they can do that either way they can show that yet that they weren't that they were going anywhere else in guam other than africa harbor which is the designated port and and that's in explained in united states be bras the minefield thirteen twenty four eight two focuses on lack of permission it's illegal to take an alien to the united states even if you take it to a designated port if you don't have permission but that's just a misdemeanor thirteen twenty four a one a one focuses on the nation as long as you take it saying that if they did charge for the phone them to with the misdemeanors or would be no question about that well i tell you what that that that is the normal way these cases are prosecut totally different path i don't know if i would have been here but that's not charge it was charges the balancing and so and the crux of that is local haitian without and that is the definitive element without that if if someone comes in and then the government can show that they did not have permission and then they don't have to show where in guam they were taking him they can take  a misdemeanor crime and turn it into a felony and that is what is not right about this case now when you as the when the court was very concerned about about when was about does thirteen twenty four a one a one need specific intent or isn't in general intent crime the court said no it's a specific intent crime because we don't want innocent contacts to become criminalized and they give a good example in that case they say if you take a permanent resident outside on texas going to international waters and come back in you've violated that general intent statu we don't want that it has to be specific intent that when casey was reversed because the judge failed to give an instruction on this if again i don't think it was reverse judge good when i in your case was a specific consent instruction request yes absolutely and was read you know we were given that this is what's wrong with the case they win case the instruction was not given what's wrong with this case is the lack of evidence as to any even a hint of evidence as to where they were going or where they were not going or what there was lots of evidence th infer if he did not intend to call ahead he did not intend to ask for permission because he knew he wouldn't get it no i did not i i'm not i haven't read the record he thank you for give me time the most important thing here is that there was no evidence and they haven't presented any in their brief as to where or where not they were going and your honor you have to have you have to give the jury some indication as to where they are going whether circumstantial or direct there was none in this case and the danger for that is it allows the government to take a misdemeanor and turn it into a felony and that's the danger and that's the distinguishing otherwise there's no difference between thirteen twenty four a one day and thirteen twenty four