good with which the government did introduce the evidence initially that uses the word assault rifle twice on few seventy to seventy nine during a republic argument three twenty eight once again it becomes an assault rifle once again though the question here is good the government precisely who arrested mr hankins testified to the event and that he chased mr hankins into the apartment and there was a rifle found in the apartment and during the closing argument the government made it clear that you know mr hankins possess well you're right that wasn't really an issue at all i mean the government made it clear to the jury i would submit if you look at the you know our sites that i gave you for wasn't exactly clear it was ninety nine to two hundred when the officer testified i became very clear on the government use of this cross examination  that's it and the rest in question your honor it was the answer well be a look at the record what the officer testifies to is that he opened the closet there was a farmer rifle sitting on the ground leaning against a wall phone nobody said he was convicted courts indulgence for a moment and made three examine the record regarding the sentencing of mr hankins on this farm conviction so i was on what i said previously yes the jury did have evidence that he was convicted or the second sentence or the prior harm conviction the energy used as an exhibit the letter that ursula christmas wrote the judge at his sentencing for that prior incident involving the farm as the letter referred to his having been convicted of that crime the letter they redacted the very part of the very beginning of your being sentenced but the clear very clear from this record is the government never articulated to the district court of her mission will theory for introduction and i would they didn't do it at the district court that's very clear but what's very telling as if you look at their answer and respond page sixteen after they have time to think about this and when they sit down to write this answer in brief and they had their best chance to articulate a theory for introduction here's what they come up with a jury could reasonably infer that the after being caught once in the apartment with a firearm and  other than the obvious which is he's the kind of character who likes to possess firearms he's done it before but we did it again and if i may i'd like to reserve my remaining time for  that occurred two and a half months prior to the to the event outlined in the indictment this court is addressed issues surrounding poor be countless times but it bears repeating today that is a rule of inclusion and evidence time well it shows it shows access and knowing possession in that in that premise just part of the defendant's case was that he didn't live there that he only came there and visited periodically and yet two and a half months prior to this incident you ha discussed at the beginning of the of the letter but the point at this point in the cross examination was that she was sort of just sensing herself from the defendant and saying that he comes over periodically and you know we're not married you know i've never claimed to be has to say yet in the letter direction that's correct this was a hand that's correct but it's a handgun the defendant claimed ownership over by his by his police there's no question that he acknowledges that was his gun two and a half months previous that was found in the same exact girlfriend was that she claimed that it was her gun and she needed it for protection and she hadn't had a gun for some time and then this comes out on cross examination and a little bit further detail that in fact there had been a gun in the in her apartment to have months  but because of the nature and the facts surrounding the case the government did feel that it was necessary to put this in to show knowledge it was the one element that the government was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and i know coun that there were two witnesses that you rely on to prove all of this one of the policemen who on the prior occasion traced him into the apartment building and then found a gun in the closet in that apartment is that as much as  the question was did you use it as you read it it was the did you identify anyone else there and that would be under the circumstance the only way he would have been able to identify him is by an eyewitness account mr hankins name was not on the lease which was part of his defense theory w wasn't his place which was all the more reason why the incident two and a half months previous was probably about his knowledge and constructive possession of a firearm in any event that's the extent of what the policeman had to say that's that's correct and then you introduced a letter right that's correct and from that letter now you argue that he is he is convicted of that specific offense with reference to that specific l significant effect on the trial and i would say that in this case because the court's limiting instructions because the district court had no guidance from the government how this evidence is relevant the court's limiting instructions both the oral and written just basically recycled late of permissible theories entered auctions the courts letting instruction never channeled the jury's thought process this into why this prior conviction is relevant to prove a material unmissable point and therefore it's very likely the jury went astray and just in their end consider says there was where a park a victim was for a gun crime or one similar to the charges in a pending case the risk of unfair prejudice would be especially obvious given that this was not an open shut case for the government given the pervasive sometimes that this prior conviction was talked about during the trial and emphasized by the prosecutor given the district court's lack of helpful emitting instructions i would ask this court to reverse remain and mr hankins trial and