of proving that ms are meant to committed the offense with the specific intent of financial gain as directed by this court in new notice the instruction given by the district court was simply that the government need only prove that the office was done for the purpose of financial gain the problem with this instruction is that as in the nose it implies that proof of any person's financial gain in connection with the aliens transport will satisfy the of the financial gain element of the offense the instruction given by the district court in th convicted of aiding and abetting there is the additional element that the individual specifically intend the all of the elements of the underlying offense and in this case the financial gain count so the government would have needed to either prove as a principle that she intended to fin or for conviction as an aider and abettor that she intend for the principle to financially game neither of which they did here and this is the fact of instruction then at least is defective to date to the principal and since we have no idea whether the jury convicted her as the principal or they are in a better under the supreme court's decision and needs that because the verdict is not supportable on one ground it's impossible to tell which one they the jury picked the convicted on reversal is required here the evidence in the record easily shows that mr mentor was convicted as a principle by the jury she was the driver and sole occupant of the car it was a compartment piece and the government in fact argued in their closing that on page two sixty nine of the car that she was there when the alien was loaded in the compartment so clearly the argument was presented to the jury that ms are mental was actually a principle and the evidence is in fact strong that that could have been a theory on which the jury convicted her that she not aid in the bit in the in the underlying acts and that it turns out that someone is going to to gain and that the the principal or the principle is required for conviction of the financial gain offense to then say frank if that so long as the government charges you as an aider and abettor so long as they can prove that somebody somewhere was going to financially gain it doesn't matter whether you as an aider and abettor actually don't know i think because they know nothing about the financial arrangements they're still on the hook for that doesn't line up with the aiding and abetting jurisprudence and a requirement that somebody specifically intended all of the elements of the underlying offense in order to be convicted of aiding and abetting so i was there sometimes yes testimony that the illegal alien had never seen or met mr mansour before so we foreclosed the possible good samaritan motivation for this crime and the testimony that the illegal alien was paying five hundred dollars for this to occur now drawing looking at all the evidence and the label favorable to the government we have an individual who's taking all of the risk for this offense and alien who's paying five hundred dollars for this offense to be committed and no familial or other relationship between the two that was just a non financial motive for doing it and looking at that all that evidence in the light most favorable to the government clearly disagree with that inference but in this context and frankly if we're talking about the sufficiency of the evidence you know there's i have to correct our grief and actually the grief of mr mental because both sides overlook the fact that the rule twenty nine motion that mr mansour brought she brought at the close of the government's case then she put on evidence and she did not renew that motion at the semantics regarding one of the instructions concerning her statements that's a page unsexy fifty to fifty one no objections to the structures in the trial that is the subject of this appeal at pages one eighty six and one instructions the only difference may be whether or not you call the samantha and whether or not you would call any character witness but with the exception of those two instructions i think all of those structures will be applicable would you agree  i believe they are your honor they were satisfactory last time you know mr apology and when she comes back to rebut i think what you want to convince us i gather that you  the facts and reasonable inferences to be determined from those facts the province of the trial if that is slow and she's convicted for inference was drawn and it's reasonable evidence but you draw inferences from these circumstances that caster still left and as your you think did it well i don't think there's any question the jury did that here because the jury did return finding that that's the only thing they could have done i think the question is whether they could have reasonably done still under the facts and evidence that were presented at trial i think they clearly could have fear you'll find as a case that when i ask you if  circumstantial evidence that he was doing so for financial gain and this quarter from this conviction but the most important point to make regarding the instruction here your honour's is that it's not erroneous under money else i've explained to you want to ask for and let's see what she received what she didn't object to a page three thirty three of the excerpts we see the element concerning financial gain forth the fent brought the person to the united necessary for the government to prove the defendant was to receive the financial gain there was no instruction like that in this case that's why mr mansour didn't object and that's why she shouldn't be objecting today because even in her grief is ten of her brief she states yes that's charged in count one bringing an alien through the united states for the purpose of commercial advantage and private financial gain in violation of eight us c section thirty twenty four eighty two need to i require that the government prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted for the purpose of commercial advantage and private financial gain against the element or betting can would probably fall to with well the aiding abetting count itself wouldn't fall but i do agree with counsel that if there is an effective instruction and you can't determine which one of the jury relied on the defect of one or there would be harmless error which i think just give i think you are getting at that point earlier because you said that well hold on aiding and abetting requires the jury to find counsel's correct the jury to find that the defendant intended just mr forces argument that this is the instruction that we asked for there's no contention that the elements themselves as given by the district court which were the instructions that mr force was reading were correct the problem was that after they gave the elements to those instructions the district court gave an additional instruction just like in moving as that said interest in proving the financial gain count they government need not prove actual payment or even agreement an agreements apparently they must only prove that the office was done for the purpose of financial gain that second instruction that's s and instruction distinct and separate from the elements is what caused the problem here and the confusion here have at least the mens rea of the principle if not a higher level specific intent therefore if the principal must intend to gain a better must have at least that intent and as far as the actual evidence presented in this trial what you have is a woman who said to a stranger on the street i have five hundred dollars there is no evidence that she ever saw him as our mentor or ever made any arrangements with our ms our mentor that she knew she was going to pay and further the evidence in the record in she drove the car in as a favor for a friend at best found out about that elian in line there's no evidence that she specifically intended to financially gain it all or that she knew that the principal would do so