stranded to an advertisement in a magazine called slightly kinky that was placed by a person who was perhaps a bounty hunter i'm not sure exactly what his relationship was because the record shows that he was not an official law enforcement officer but any of the agencies that ended up in this case but was attempting to make cases and then find a prosecutor who would take them in this case a was not disputed that he had a sufficient connection so that that would not be an issue in this case whatever his relationship was he was seen as a law enforcement officer so that was not an issue at any point in the state system or in the district court in this didn't let me try to walk you through what i believe shows that in the record with respect to the sufficiency issue it seems to me that that can be divided into two separate questions first do you raise  cited the supreme court's decision in jacobson for the proposition that the prosecution must prove predisposition beyond a reasonable doubt and then when i just say at that point in his state prove that the record was devoid of basis as a matter of law pretrial the record shows however as a just argued pages eighteenth fifty six and seventy six that that had to be question of his actual competence and what the court found there was that the two issues were sufficient were intertwined that mr lance very satisfied with the exhaustion requirements and had not th that he had fairly present at the client the law are here i think makes that clear that that is what happened because in both the state and federal trial the court has to go through the jackson analysis and looks at the evidence analyze the evidence and decide whether or not any reasonable jury could find the facts that's what occurred in this with respect to the jury instruction client again we believe that the analysis of the record shows that that claim was also presented with  their reference to federal law again i would start with the supplemental excerpt page seventy six in which coleman is cited as authority on the jury instruction issue and not seen this in those cases when i wrote the briefs but when you look at page five hundred to five hundred one in the eagle and the wellbore in case you see a complete detailed discussion ugh the obligation to instruct on all of the elements and if in a state case the jury is not given full instruction on all of the elements then you have a due process violation so under the decision in recess and under the decisions of this court that make it clear that a person in the state system can satisfy the procedural requirements by citation to federal law we have that in this case  cited the right cases that have the discussion that is directly on point so i believe your honor that with respect to false issues this record makes clear that they were fairly presented had to go searching for truffles who come to the conclusion oh well he really meant jury instruction number twenty three he didn't help his case by failing to attend jury instruction number twenty three so we never even included the instruction appeals brief so the court of appeals not only would have had to go to the appendix they would have to even gone beyond that and said well no we don't believe that's what he really means what he really means is that he's challenging that jacob process clause and oregon's statement of the jackson issue is the federal court so that is clearly and directly stated at page fifty again the evidence is all the trial evidence so what was presented in the court of appeals to be the trial evidence because under state law it could not be a review of the pretrial motion and what the