two separate occasions that firearms were predicate racketeering and looking at constructions as a whole when the context the evidence in this case this error of prejudice my client made the trial unfair and the result unreliable or described racketeering seven separate times in its instructions to these times it was flat possession with intent to distribute other products robbery encourage acting so it was suggesting that this was a non exhaustive with moreover there is new indication that the jury ever consulted the written instructions or that they followed the written this stretches rather than the orally given instructions on three separate occasions to look at the indictment said commission of two or more of the racketeering acts alleged are we in tighten or two of the racketeering acts describe firearms rifles and which heard in the written instructions concerns a matter that was not front and center with respect to the evidence at trial quite the opposite evidence of firearms was really of it trial and that means one t that if there is a certainty as to what they followed there should be more concerned that they were the wrong thing exactly so there was evidence at trial throughout the trial that that game bought insult time rooms that they shared firearms that they use firearms and as to my client specifically it was testimony that he delivered a nine millimeter pistol to another gang member that he sold weapons for the game that he had both pistols and rifles that he had both semiautomatic and fully automatic fire that he would use a three fifty seven that he sometimes had it in or a rifle and that he sold the forty  obliterated serial number to another gang member and then the government argued in its closing that they can use proceeds of robberies to buy guns and ammunition and that became confused by this they would share that would have suggested to the jury that far arms was a predicate act well i would suggest just the references to firearms but the prosecutor never said firearms distribution and robbery describing them he said the case was about carjackings drug distribution and robberies i don't i don't recall that he ever said that was in the racketeering racketeering and they acquitted him of the drug conspiracy that doesn't mean necessarily that they didn't find that but it's certainly supportive of our argument that they will have relied on firearms the judge told them of course fire so in the context of this case the instructional error both predict is my client  and affected the fairness and integrity of the trial process and his conviction should be overturned in the few right about that the other issues are over yet and if i'm wrong about that then the jury  becomes more important thank you don't believe you made any specific reference to predicate asked per se but he did begin by stating that this was a case about as my opposing counsel stated drug trafficking robberies and carjackings with no preference of firearms what do you think the significance of is of the fact that not only is there a clearer mistake in the or instruction any clearly correct statement in the written instructions but the incorrect reference in the or home in the world instruction referred to an activity that isn't sort of fleeting or a sideshow or something that would come up in trial in a way that obviously wouldn't have been something that one would think could have been a predicate act but instead was something that was so intermixed in the entire thing that if he didn't know what the law was because it was unclear one could reasonably think that the evidence about the firearms was evidence put forward as a predi