have been a substantial step towards this alleged violation because accept hold of the the and the object of the use of the phone is to get a minor gauge in sexual activity so how is it that substantial steps in the attempt to accomplish that end are not relevant it sounds like what you're saying is it's not just that they're not a substantial step by your argument they're just not relevant at all no matter what he did afterwards if he went into the mic donald with his pants around his ankles and  grabbed the teenager you'd say it's just not relevant because it happened later right no your honor i'm sorry i wasn't clear in my briefing on the travel it's only relevant and it would be relevant to go to the issue of his intent but it would be a substantial step how could it not be a substantial how could it be relevant in any way if it if it doesn't constitute a substantial step because it sounds like what you're you know cars kion down there are rd circuit precedents this is the use of wire internet it's phone calls and text messaging your suggestion is that anything that happens after it it's just it's after the fact relevance but it can it can constitute a substantial step toward the attempt if that's true then what could possibly what could possibly be happening in addition to the phone call or the text with the police have to go in and find something in the residence what could be what could be a substantial st step as this court center type are they are the communications themselves did the defendant in those online communications attempt to persuade the fictitious mine or did the questions then getting to the issue of prejudice was the error harmless was there other evidence and the record of a substantial step could the offer of an i pad be considered a substantial step and i want to start  saying when looking at the question of harmless error the question is does this court has the government proven beyond a reasonable doubt that this hour didn't contribute to the verdict and the offer of the i pad wasn't even arguing to the jury as being a substantial step so i don't think this court could have a sure conviction that the prosecutor's erroneous argument didn't contribute to the verdict on a theater on the basis of a theory that the government didn't even see fit to argue to the the under the statute of conviction what what cases are you relying on that says that the travel itself and the possession of cons which could certainly be viewed as an instrument taliban and of having sex with a minor that goes after the fact things categorically cannot be considered as substantial steps saying it for book law but i don't hear you saying you've got a case that says what you're saying right now which is that it can't be you've got cases that say it's not necessary you've got cases to talk about what a substantial step is but you don't have a from the district court in and with squarely addressed and held in favor of the defendant on this issue where the government did not see fit to take an appeal but the logic of all of these other cases clearly cannot be a substantial step the fact that the very least be necessary if it's not necessary couldn't strongly corroborate the intent and therefore can't me only with the logic of that follow that logic how is it the fact that something is not necessary means it is not corroborative or it's not indicative of or it's not supportive of how can you give me the syllogism would take their well let me let me try to explain it if i may by the very facts of this case the travel doesn't provide any no evidence at all that he has the intent to persuade a minor to have sex and that's why not why doesn't it why doesn't the fact that he goes there show that he's interested in sex just as much as offering an i phone on a telephone call or text which it doesn't show i'm going to do something that i want to do is it isn't it indeed exactly like other cases where we've said if you put yourself in a position to do something it indicates that you want to do it you're actually interested in doing it that was the thought that was good you know what we said  child even if you didn't yet have that direct contact you took steps to put you in contact with the travelling to the place taking steps to put you in contact with the child you're on a perfect nesters involve travel  so there has to be evidence from the communications that the defendant was attempting to persuade and that's what we don't have here and that's what the government never argued to the jury the government treated tw cussed there's a prime a facia case that the defense has to make and then the burden is to get that the burden moved to the government if i got that right yes ok can you can you either by by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not induced or by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he was predisposed to words the government can deal with either of those case on both prong said we do we certainly did here and the government didn't even make an argument against previous against predisposition or lack thereof right i understand that i'm just trying to think through how this how this works  can you can you tell us what what looks like what's a prime aphasia case about lack of predisposition look like what was here to begin with they did a search of this step needs to be something that whole robbery the defendant's intent to commit the offense and the governments admit that if the rank them but what i want to point out is that directing whether you could even have a conviction under the without traffic it was so well established this is even back in two thousand substantial step and i cited additional ones in my theory if i don't know that there is one particular wonder the credit when another it's just that the prosecutor based his statement in closing on the web site and it starts with the government falsely representing that you know it's like a double falsity it's that i'm a i'm an adult woman now that's where it starts and i take it from the  a matter of some moment to the defense side of this when they say they were reduced i understand their argument to be very large pointed to the fact that mr davis went into this looking for  relationship with this woman and was only at and that's what was being suggested by blocks original posting to craigslist an adult woman he responded to that it was only after that that the discussion turned to you know i'm a fourteen year old so that's the you know why isn't why isn't that a pri smith the government post and then i get it that it's an adult woman and i respond to it and then they try to get me for getting with the child i mean who is that is now trying to fish case at least your honor they didn't reveal the results after the defendant had been wheeled into the relationship the very st communication after the defendant sent his also including the communication has been found fault or presentations have been found to constitute an inducement in and of themselves so we begin with the communications again block starts asking davis how far you want to go what do you can be honest some get event does not respond for three days to blocks repeated efforts to get him to resume what is a lot of resistance that's more resistance than what d we see in many of the cases fining him from as a matter of law and one block finally does get him to resume and then again keeps trying to elicit the kind of conversations that would prohibit communications that might fall other and take it from there it was only as a result of block going on and on and on trying to get davis to have the sort of communication that might violate the statute davis resistance was finally broke n and then the communications make absolutely clear that if davis had not encountered block on line not only would it be likely that he wouldn't violate others it's a near found it entrapment as a matter of law i think it certainly inferrable d in those situations that the defendants there had the power to terminate their contacts with the government agent if you take sherman for were the government foreman was trying to get the defendant to find a drug source for him and they were attending the same a type meeting as if the defendant was on comfortable with those requests being made from this person that he did not know well it was just another person who came to the meeting he could have found a different meeting to go to that for me was within his power and i think if we look at any of these different entrapment as a matter of law cases that power was within the defendant's control so i don't think any of the cases of address that exact point