government's failure to prove that mr cobb a hero in iowa was removed from the united states in june of two thousand and sixteen in accordance with a removal order that had been validly reinstated as required by law at that time this failure proof is is and on an essential element of the offense which requires reversal for insufficiency of the evidence now we agree with the government on one thing in this analysis which is that all someone leaves and comes back in the attorney general may reinstate the order now the attorney general has delegated that authority to the department of homeland security which i see is a part and this is all faction's stature because your honor it least in this case in these circumstances of this case we submit the clause as well in order removal is outstanding is it  lopez court in the th circuit which which in different circumstances different to lopez was not a reinstatement case it went went another another way on that but your honor i would just go straight off of the language of the statute in the language of a of a number of statutes as they as they come together and that we're talking about someone who has been removed that what we have is that that needs to be done while an order of removal is outstanding  brought him back the other four in well and even that's not a question my question is were the seven prior removals of proper  the challenge were orders entered on those occasions where the reliance on the initial order this record tell us any of these things i believe your honor what is there in the  is as to the ast of those prior instances the a filed the administrative it is your honor that's correct and that was that was admitted by i think agreement in the district court and what it shows us in the prior instances is that the we would submit that the order was reinstated consistent with section one thousand two hundred and thirty one dollars a five by the issuance of an order as required by the implementing regulations that had the effect of reinstating the order until it was executed and he's removed and so that is good that your honor is what is missing in the removal that happened in june of two thousand and sixteen which is the only basis for the charge defense that he was here in front of the purpose of those documents that you speak you know of just memorialize his departure and if you had departed voluntarily maybe initially maybe you have a point when he didn't depart voluntarily back in one thousand nine hundred and nine that's correct or not i would certainly very who are not that order every single time was reinstated has nothing to do with the warrant i would submit your honor that under the implementing regulations that have been that have been delegated to the department of homeland security they say a warrant shall be issued and i would submit your honor the purpose of the warrant i think it uncontroverted the question though your honor is whether it has been validly reinstated as to the june th teen removal that's that's the question since the attorney general is to make that determination in every instance to reinstate the order and isn't there a presumption that if it if there is a removal isn't there a presumption of  as not been challenge but what clearly was challenged in the district court here is whether whether the june th teen removal was done in a way that reinstated that order it was could it have been reinstated absolutely it could have been if the if immigration customs enforcement had followed their own regulations which say they shower issue a warrant and then they shout execute the  warrant you can't execute a warrant on someone after they're already gone write it i wouldn't now a jeyes it to a situation where let's say you had a search warrant if you obtain the search warrant you execute the search warrant if you get t search warrant three weeks later even if it is supported by probable cause all of those things can quiet with the th amendment it wasn't executed at the time that that is and so what you that phrase while in order while an order of exclusion deportation or removal is outs and we disagree that that jumps over to removed and we sell it has to be shown there as that you were  removed as a game over for you i believe it at least test to apply to or remove no no that's that's not my question i understand that's your position is that that jumps over an oar because there are two o does have to apply to the removed your honor and i understand understand that you think that but if we disagree with you on that then is that the end of your argument in other words that's the lens pen you have to clear that hurdle or you i think we do have to clear that hurdle your honor and here's what i would like to point one thing out in that regard which is in as to this argument the government relied on the pritchett case out of the d c out of the d c circuit i believe from seventy two dollars or thereabouts and and one thing that that court found particularly instructive was the placement of a comma and i think that's important here when we look at this statute we have a comma after admission we have a comma after excluded we have a comma after deported but we do not have a comma separating or removed and in the nd or has departed well but it would be very easy to read it the way that you want to read it which is to get rid of the st war and put a comma and then we would say that the tag and while an order of exclusion is outstanding that that would apply to all of them as a matter of statutory interpretation but that's not what it reads it doesn't have a comma it has an or creating a different segment there at the end a separate condition but i would also say your honor that there is not a comma after removed which we could look at that when we talk about what is the last in if he didn't hear i would submit that the last in a seed and also could be or removed or has departed the united states for an order of deportation is outstanding and if we look at it in that way and view that grouping as the last antecedent to which  that limiting clause applies and again it's the it that it is the that group is not separated by a comma there isn't or there but but there's not there's not a nd comma to come easily wasn't there here a stipulation of remov there was a stipulation of physical removal there was not a stipulation that that was done while an order of deportation was outstanding which would have required it to be reinstated based upon the stipulate wasn't there a valid order a removal that is presumed on the basis of his stipulation i would say no your honor because it has to be if we look at the you've heard there are no cases i do i would submit your honor this question has not been answered by the court and so we would say in these circumstances where you have a reinstatement case that was not the case in lopez that that when that for an order to be reinstated make it thereby outstanding that there has to be a warrant issued and executed in accordance with the regulations and that didn't happen here there was a failure of proof thank you very thank you forty seconds  may please the court received and for the united states under any interpretation of the statute the defendant's conviction should be a fur and that's because of two documents which were admitted at trial the st is the one thousand nine hundred and nine removal order which is trial and we included it in our nd supplemental record on appeal at page twenty one and the nd document is the decision reinstating that order and that is located in the in the nd supplemental record at p fifty eight c f r section two hundred and forty one point eight and under those statutes and regulations there is a clear process for reinstatement the immigration officer must make certain finding such as the identity of alien the existence of the removal order and whether the alien had entered the united states and it's that's where the process under which the immigration officer gives notice to the alien the alien has an opportunity to contest and on that process is over the immigration officer issues a decision reinstating the order and that's what happened in this case in two thousand and fourteen now of course it remains the case that the order has to be executed through removal of the alien and that's where the warrant come as in the play the warrant is a ministerial administrative document that is designed to memorialize execution of a removal order that has already been reinstated there's nothing in the regulations or the statutes which suggest that would warrant of removal is a legal prerequisite to reinstate it and i think from mister argument today his entire argument turns on the idea that the warrant was necessary for reinstatement and without reinstatement the order of removal was not outstanding now i'd like  briefly on the question of statutory interpretation although i don't think this court needs to reach it given the facts of this case is that is is the interpretation really relevant i don't think it is your honor i think under any interpretation there is an outstanding order here it had been reinstated the defendant has not shown me as an initial matter he has not shown that the warrant itself is invalid the regulation governing the warrant is eight c f r section two hundred and forty one dollars and it merely says that certain officers will issue a warrant and certain office earth will execute the warrant and both of those things occurred here it imposes no requirements with respect the timing or dates or anything like that so as an initial matter he has not shown the warrant   to a valid order and left it at that and that is our submission the order was undisputedly valid there's no dispute about that it was he stipulated that he had been removed on june th two thousand and sixteen and on page fifteen  the court just very briefly i would just like to say your honor that the question is whether the warrant was reinstated as to the june of two thousand and sixteen removal that's the issue the question is whether it validly reinstated as to that removal for him for purposes of section one thousand two hundred and thirty one a five we submit it was not may have been done for a prior removal back in two thousand and fourteen that wasn't done for this removal was the only one issue in this case therefore the conviction should be