charles david chatting here before you today as that represented head at trial in this matter in the district court this case did proceed to trial and our position is that on counts twelve and three the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction so guilty in addition the jury instructions were misstated thirty each of those kelps and in turn because of the lack intention of an exchange of cash for those and i think that the interpretation of that text message i'll take care of me i'll take care of you i'll that could be that the big issue is the open to a lot of different interpretations to what that might have no no no no if you're not it's barely mention the briefs i get but but i but i do think the scarborough case acts like that it doesn't really matter on those specific words by the time you're done really get is it true that only one were stolen here we believe that help must be vacated and that conviction reverse ah i had kind of thought about the scarborough case myself it actually was a nine hundred and seventy seven supreme court case it follows on the heel of a case that really discussed more in the briefs and that was and twenty two k it used those three as a comparison to the statute that it was actually in carpeting and what seemed important to me about the way that scarborough which was the very next year after barrett same supreme court referred back to bear was it talked about how not twenty two a three congress was really clear about the interstate nexus if you bought a gun in another state then you had it in this state it was really clear in one hundred and twenty two j the court the court said this congress if you get a gun which is moving as or which is part of what constitutes interstate or foreign commerce it was really clear that  congress at that interstate connection now twenty two k which is also cited in barrett and not twenty four b used a very similar formulation for the interstate nexus compo twenty four dollars bay and it is not clear that non twenty four dollars b is a strictly interstate commerce statute and and  it's particularly my hope is that the court actually finds that the defendant waived this below because they did address twenty four b at the jury instructions conference and they did not raise this issue and under our courts president if under rule twenty nine in a rule twenty nine scenario when you're making a motion for judgment not your judgment of acquittal if you don't raise that specific thing but you did raise other specific wins then you wait that enough that one letter or you go but what about the reply here or even if that doesn't apply if you have if you take it on plane air said don't help us in this case and what the what the defendant then turns to is the legislative history that was discussed by the arizona co s and also by the supreme court about this act that was passed think it was nine hundred and sixty eight the gun control act and and the part of the legislative history that the court cho does actually give an example of out of state purchases of firearms being used for in state crime but if you go past that was quoted the congress whenever in the very same the very next paragraph starts talking about an another problem with these guns is that their imported their imported from foreign countries they're imported and so what's not clear from the legislative history is that this statute guilt only with crossing the state line and coming back in town to commit a crime it really was dealing with the gun crime itself gun  a blight on our society and it hard to think specially in law to the full legislative history that the congress would have said if you're going to buy a gun with an intent to commit a crime all the discussions of the purpose of the gun control act and he's not twenty two often says and not twenty four b so it's at the courts have talked about it is it it's really a question of timing of the nexus not necessarily the fact of the nexus not twenty four dollars b requires a nexus and so it because it's not clear because the the position of this case before this court right now is that there was no objection to this no opportunity for the parties to brief it no opportunity for the district court to address it that it's if it's anything it's playing in error review and it's not playing error based on the state of law at the time that mr chess going case was tried and with respect to the question of whether or not the firearm had in fact intent of the person to what at the time that he made the purchase are made the acquisition and mr chastising the facts as he believed them to be aware that the firearms he was receiving were stolen that's what he believed at the time that he completed the transaction and are submit to the court that that's the measure of what should be the guilty mental state and the guilty and fifty f rd one thousand and one actually dealt with the quid pro quo question it said call the search that the government failed to prove explicit quid pro quo citing the supreme court's decision to mccormick however the court in that case explicitly limited its holding to elected officials who accept a legitimate campaign contributions and so this court has a decision on that question that we used the model instruction from the th circuit the facts clearly prove that he committed the office and there was no objection or no request by the defendants below for the quid pro quo language being included in the instruction at the time of trial so even if called didn't control their real clean air or of the district court having used our model instruction with the overwhelming proof that we put on a trial i would ordinarily say how much the court has other questions i'll surrender the balance of my time but i think my time is up so and thank you your honor error just means that it's something that the error is b s that is this court found twelve days ago in united states st democrat plane error affects the financial rights when there is a reasonable probability the result would have been different otherwise and that language comes from the one thousand nine hundred and three supreme court case the one out where this error is seriously effects the fairness or integrity or public reputation in traditional proceedings and so had the court instructed the jury regarding the