rebuttal request will be granted i've raised three issues on appeal for this court to consider after a jury trial in this matter the first issue was of great significance because i challenge the government's proof on its attempt to establish interstate commerce in this case the government attempted to prove interstate commerce through a camera box and during the course of the trial the government continued to build on that camera box by showing it to various witnesses including a g e expert and what was significant during the trial was what the government did not present other than a g e expert testifying that the camera that was contained in that box was not manufactured in the virgin islands the reality is the government did not have the camera well it would have at best if they would have produced and what has happened in this case is it's very distinguishable from a deal from god because this case this court has already looked at how to expand what it means to produce child pornography and what it means to prove interstate commerce as it applies to the production a perv possession of child pornography the facts in this case show purely intrastate activity the facts supported  jury's finding that my client produced this video of this activity with this child victim it was coveted it was kept within his room on a blue jump drive it stayed within the u s virgin islands and so the ability for the government to expand interstate commerce to look at materials that were used to produce the child pornography become that much more important and there was no testimony or evidence to support that the blue thumb drive itself had traveled to interstate commerce or the laptops the c d s any other piece of evidence that would have been able to save this this pornography child pornography and it's significant because the materials can also be considered and so we have hears all these materials in particular the blue from dr that would likely be government could have offered testimony that was not manufactured in the u s virgin islands focused on a box of box of a camera that it didn't have and i think the government had the availability of these other cases to prove its case to show interstate commerce and instead it had to build on inferences and i'm not suggesting that there wasn't other evidence introduced to support the existence of the camera because we did see that we did have a reference by the child victim herself that my client possessed a black camera we had testimony that my client's mother's boyfriend gave him the camera he had purchased kmart we had also had testimony that supported that my client had possessed the black camera i think it was the child's brother that had testified to that again the box itself had a silver camera on the outside and i are going to do jury and not manufactured they could not your honor and the reason they couldn't is because and this is why denis carter the government's forensic computer expert testified that these the numbers on  photos came from this a twelve fifty camera that would have been the link to the camera box because on the camera box it says a twelve fifty but what dennis card was not allowed to testify about was that the videos were created by an eight twelve fifty camera and that was significant because that's supported counts one through five and that was the crux of the production count and so because of those reasons  was a considerable influence on this jury now only because of the very heightened emotional and highly charged videos that they were subject to review but also because of how the district court handled the emotionality of one particular juror and it was clear after the videos were shown that one juror was very emotional the court noticed that the court who typically discourages sidebars and said i'm concerned about this year my immediate response is simply have the jury move it's practical i was concerned mr gollum's would no longer receive a fair trial at that point because of the bias and prejudice that was exhibited not doing something when you never ask them to do anything as i remember for the way i think that part of the reasoning behind that and i think there was a reference and i did make a suggestion about pulling the jury i don't think it came out as wanting to war dear the jury but there was a reason because i believe the district court was going to remove that juror we had already been reassured at least one occasion that juror was going to be removed and it wasn't until towards the end of the trial when the court appeared to say you know i don't need to remove this juror that juror stayed on and again i think the prejudice had already continued and already existed and for those reasons we believe that the court erred in simply not finding out and not asking why not simply conducting an individualized for deer and find out what is going on with this person and how can we limit the effect on that the additional jurors are review of this question is for abuse of discretion and it appears from the record that the district court paid particular attention to the actions of the juror after the cr e those circumstances can we say with that the court abuse of discretion because the district court didn't remove the jury i think that is the crux of the abuse of the discretion the court considered  it was important and the court assured us that that was going to happen and it didn't happen and i think that is the essence of the abuse of discretion on that particular issue additionally i've raised the issue of the court's failure to grant my motion to suppress we had a separate suppression hearing i thought it was significant that there was language in both the warrant and the affidavit that was incorporated into the warrant that allowed the government to well what i consider to be unbridled discretion by the agents and the specific language in that warrant allowed agents to seize images and files in any form and were ever it may be stored and found now raising that issue the district court took issue with another aspect of the affidavit in the warrant and that was the address on my client's driver's license the court was concerned about the accuracy or maybe the sta ss of that particular information but didn't think it was tantamount to any particular fourth amendment violation but what the court didn't address was this specific language and how that language language that didn't allow in any form or were ever it may be stored in found that would certainly have been very much more limited again i don't know practically if that would have kept the agents from finding the blue jump drive in mr guns bedroom but regardless there certainly needed to have been some limitation and agents zeal especially in this tight kind of case where there may be a belief that this is being sent out this is being received this is being there are other victims etc and we urge the court to limit that and the court did not do that thing else computer forensic person who indicated that based on his analysis of the method data that the camera that took the image was in fact  this judge was very hands on and that is my fact the judge is the one who brought it to the attention of the parties and just a review of the record shows that we were at sidebar for quite a long time discussing this it was based on the audience it wasn't based on anything else and yes at times the evidence to prove a defendant's guilt is in fact pretty this shows to that defendant but if it was that best if the judge did in fact question her but definitely in this case the judge did not of course this court reviews the actions of the trial judge and whether or not to question this juror that they were limited to search for child pornography exhibit c which was the attachment that indicated what could and could not be seized even though it was fact that it did in fact limit what the officer was was searching for and if the officer was found something something other than the evidence