now certainly your honor and and i understand the definition of is that you take something from someone else without that individuals consent out and when yes your honor and it reaches all manner of takings that are initially that's not what you business are doing for the last four or five minutes is exactly contrary to what i thought you were arguing because you kept saying in the normal course it does we'd just be chopping it up and saying well this is really not a theft the past and everything when you have six fifty nine is a statue that seems to be quite urs in the normal case for purposes yes or no no occasion general view of the low you know you don't realize you don't acknowledge that in the normal investment case the timing the tempora nature of the criminal intent to do the character and the it arises differently than the receipt of the assets into you and you don't acknowledge that you're wrong or the ins you don't even want knowledge fee to argue against to say that's one way so i want you not to help yourself out by answer something other than my question and now in light of that why would we accept your argument that you can say that this is contrary to what the general rule is which you admit it's not sort of a lesser included or an example of it's not a lesser included because they have different elements that is the first level transaction involving the first two parties the person owns the stuff that's being taken and the take that's that that does not include receipt of song that involves a third person so it can't possibly be a subset because if it were a sunset it wouldn't actually it would actually be included because there's this third person who's receiving stolen property that isn't the classic definition of theft it all so it just looking at the plain meaning in this case we would actually suggest no we think that the court inside the congress very specifically used the word stolen property and that parent that are going to be more expansive than just the concept theft itself to use the word steel in its broad sense to get what the current person might understand to be taking something doesn't belong to you in keeping it and that's consistent with  except your argument we didn't have to accept your statement for the purposes of reading the law all that and that of stealing is not the same as an act of theft your on because you have taken something like something from someone that never gave consent for those fines to be used for that purpose and in fact the underlying predicate in six fifty nine of them equates to embezzle or stolen property it doesn't try to draw the distinctions between to do it rather groups of them to gather as being the well that's because they are the same order of magnitude and again you're on this isn't an issue of whether somebody committed theft or fraud this is an issue of what happens after you do the fraud or the turn around to take those wrongfully obtained goods to somebody else that's that third person who's been convicted of receipt of stone goods that is getting after the market that creates the incentive to steal the best first place and that is what congress it's not a fraud case for a fraud doesn't turn on consent if terms on things like misrepresentation knowing this representations and then and then reliance and the rest but consent is an element of a typical fraud offense in that you are teaming somebody consent fraudulently and in that regard typical fraud offense is different from the tough defense maidan larceny only whether or not the team in the garage was done with or without the consent of the owner to make it not a theft a stance isn't that what we look at we look at if you to just give me a yes or no so with are you representing the current administration no in the sense that i represent the united states through its agent the attorney general which is of course the current they do and yourself so you are here and they name position for the attorney general but you really representatives that's correct and that position to be a maybe different than the position of the attorney jim yes or no would just ask the court to deny their view petition and support the agency's reasonable interpretation of the eye nic thank you very much in the sense that the intent is to converse or misappropriation or otherwise exceed the terms of consent that has been granted that is in intent that can but n under the subset of criminal law question those here is whether in addition to that criminal sanction the person is guilty of an aggravated felony and that's not dismissed the as lighter or otherwise not severe that will make  from the owner now and why the why do you say we have to look at the taking at the time the person was originally trusted with the funds rather than at the time think that this money was embezzle with the owners or the person who entrusted consent is a practical matter when they're confronted with the fact that someone has embezzle funds from them parlance equivalent to consent no your honor for purposes of substantive criminal law the question now for purposes of determining whether this is an aggravated felony is a slightly different one if it were tr e that the pure unadulterated always s'posed as split these off i mean why wouldn't the presumption be that there would be some consistency i think congress has done differently in the text and in the