quote st the supreme court over sixteen years ago construed the crime of issue to continue to element not necessarily required by statutory text a defendant charged with receipt of child pornography must have knowledge not only as the act of receiving self but also as the fact that the material he is receiving features minors and gave an explicit sexual conduct nd continuing to quote this interpretation of the statute  demanding c enter a requirement was never explained to the defendant during the rather brief colloquy proceeding the just records exceptions of the that is equally true here as we've laid out and the government has chosen said as does every other th circuit case really on this issue but it's not the nd part of your honor's question it's not we do not we're not arguing because we don't have to argue that it wasn't knowing it what is that there and just really think there is a that you're getting is that it what they elements were not properly explained to him so it's pretty much the same thing it's saying that he did he was not aware of what he was leading to numerous other cases we know in the th circuit as well as every other circuit elements must be explained in order to comply with here we also know from one certain cases such as problems jefferson on whether the word knowingly you know what it ought to write like or what it what it is to i mean you could read that to say knowingly received and it knowingly also applies to knowing that it was the use of a minor right so what the supreme court says an exciting videos look we understand the statue as written says knowingly just applies to receipt but that's not the right reading of it so we're going to read a counter factually we're going to read i requirements and those are the see enter requirements just like in says man scheme that he was not informed of not that that's the whole kit and caboodle here but he was only not informed of that if he vittie you can see that the knowing is just included in the st element and if you compare that to what the the way the jury instruction reads the deficiency becomes a knowledge of the performers age jefferson quote imputation of knowledge to the use of a minor require the government prove that the defendant knew that the person depicted in this actually explicit material was in fact element of the charge of the same argument was being made that the elements were not adequately lined then supreme court we have never held that a district court that the court must itself explain the elements so you about i believe and was correct me if i'm wrong this court case law is on rule eleven this is an entirely ruhleben argument it's rule eleven that requires that the nature of the charge be explained which rule eleven you had to explain the elements you didn't explain the elements that equals if error in just reasons we draw put it that the rule eleven required that the play be knowing voluntary and intelligent out you're the fair just entered is literally construed in favor of the defendant whereas that's not necessarily true in the other context so i could watch a lower threshold to show the score i don't have to go all the way to show that's the crux of my excitement that you know was talking about hey you need to that statute to be read not just to say he knowingly received anything but what he received you also knowingly receive depictions of a minor indications actually expose a conduct that languages right here right here we're where the district court said did you knowingly do this in addition to that the district court asked mister peterson at the rule  did you review the facts nuclear agreement yes he said without equivocation and did you agree that they're all true yes he said without equivocation well not only did the factual basis of the plea agreement and that's on page two  not only did it also if i've missed or heat or sin of the nature of the charge did you knowingly receive depictions of minors engage in sexual explicit conduct but you'll note at the end of that factual basis it also sa identified its concerns and within that p s hard to find it i didn't even know these kids were minors i thought they were all or teenagers i e they were of age they are adults here we don't have that in  these primary concern was look the record shows you knowingly received something but it never confirms that he knows what he knowingly receives and the factual basis to which in the plea colloquy mister peterson the hacks were as well so huge distinction between so nancy and here the record here was much clearer the district judge was very focused on it's burning that that m will do in the future but that's not a basis for determining that the district judge abused his discretion in with respect to the extent he satisfied ruhleben the one g which was hey here's the nature of the charge and oh by there is no already that says you know you need to apply a jury the district judge needs to read a jury instruction be a good idea but not require are not required in and in abuse of discretion analysis there is no abuse of discretion here was particularly then boom we're given this were were you know there's a motion to withdraw filed and in the hearing for that motion the district court was able to glean from defense attorney hey defendant gave me this argument i didn't come up with it how i didn't know what i was really leading to e file the declaration in support of is a motion to suppress the well versed in island declarations here not only was going to have a correlation iow there was no evidence presented worse than this one he said don't you he said guilty and then on top of that he also acknowledged these acts not only showing i knew when i received and i knew on what device i received and i know what is revoked and that didn't take place so the only issue at that relevant to the st motion to suppress was h s i you can't follow up with any parole searches of cellphones by to sixty days we know from the case law that the court is an obligation to explain the elements and make sure the defendant understand as i read those six pages there is nowhere not even but if i think i have reviewed those pages and i don't agree with you i think that the burden you're putting on the court is much more stringent than that  mister peterson vaca we ran out of time i don't want the court i think that i was somehow suggesting that they were last wrong or without merit no i didn't suggest that it was just curious to me that the government would bring them up when  read the charges that way then is there any additional that your client would have been misled by that and i just i have a hard time seeing how he could have possibly been misled given all the stuff the government said about the fact that he was all you know the about the nature of the to read that language and that's language that was read to him and i don't see any evidence that he would have been misled by that language being presented to him because that is a way to read that line there's nothing in the  you can look at all of that and there's no reason for that judge or for us to think that when he when that this defendant heard the words did knowingly receive at least one visual depiction the producing of which involved at least one minor engage and it's actually the there's no reason that the judge or or us would thought that he would have heard that as well knowingly only applies to the receiving part it doesn't also apply to knowing that this was a minor there's no reason just to think that be just to be clear your position is not i don't think although it seems like a lot of your argument your position can't be all that is plea quality call if we have all the counties like six pages in here that's not the law right and not all the counts and trying to figure out that's what the case law says giancana says explicitly but going back to judge bin points which i don't i mean that that language to me is saying if if there's if you've got problems in the standing other problems but here that's not what's going on here you have all kinds of reasons to think and they all point to send russian that he did actually know when he was only aware of the fact that he knew that this involved minors and what you're saying is yeah but because in he actual languages so he didn't have knowing who or knowing right in front of the word minor and that knocks all of that out that's not how i don't think us those cases are saying that's not what i'm saying you're not i what i'm saying here is i think the court i think there's a strong president to say that the court is