say is it is still possible for the government to prove that one has been found in the united states through any go reentry and so what we have a situation here where there was no the defendant wasn't given up so i made your point is even though we're really dealing with only a fountain if you can show that that his presence is involuntary forget the entry that may be circumstantial evidence that might  current presence is a voluntary that that's your point and that you were prohibited from doing this by the trial court correct where was your offer of proof oh well there was no proof obviously with respect to the not to d s she also talked about was the entry itself i fail to see an offer of proof as to the found in the presence being involuntary and you were focused on that entry trying to make that an element of the offense and it seems that the the issue that which was you know how it is that you happened to be in the nature of county in two thousand and one with nothing when he said that's about seven degrees off center from the real issue is whether the his presence at that time was voluntary or to two thousand and one is referring to when he my home or how you happen to be and it's pretty pretty thank i would have thought that had you been focused on the issue that you know that is the issue you would have made an offer proof when the government kind of kept objecting and said your honor we offer to prove that my client was drunk out of his mind the entire time he was here he was in a hospital under all kinds of drugs and didn't even know where he was but that's absent well that's true though he was asked the question do you know whether you were hospitalized in that period right or what appellate court and if you fail to make an offer of proof well i think what the problem here is though the district court made it very clear that none of that was relevance what judge cooper said was that basically lawyer and you say yes it is your honor and i make an offer of proof that's the way you preserve your was drunk for a year while he was hospitalized he was then being followed by the hospital weekly basis he was in and out of the house will continuously not enter the doctor's or any hospital records or anything like that the show that his presence was involuntary no not because the court in fact that it's not relevant the court said none of this is relevant because i'm not going to beat this horse until it dies again but that's what authors of proof are all about i certainly understand your honor and  perhaps defense counsel should have given want to look but that wasn't done here and the district court made very clear that she did not believe it was necessary to present any of this evidence regarding either given opportunity to answer the question because the court completely precluded it and that's what it comes back so i think judge cooper simply misunderstood that the defendant has the right to explain away precise prevents it from arguing either of those points and the judge against that doesn't matter too little too late well i mean what she said was you know it's not an element of your thoughts when in fact it is an  offense i mean if there is this it's been found a distance from the border is in fact circumstantial proof if the defense is not given the opportunity to rebut that then then essentially you are saying it's a status offense why don't you take the rest of your court my name is joe lieberman represent the government's i mean in this case at trial the defendant admitted that he had been in the united states for more than a year before he was found by the ins and the district court specifically said that the issue was not whether or not his reentry was voluntary but the issue was what happened when the defendant sobered up and realized he was in the united states when there just a court recognized that this was the issue defense counsel remained entirely silence there was never any response to the district court invitation to present evidence that the defendant stay in the united states was not voluntary  fact the issue was what happened when the defendant realized he was here in the united states what would your strongest position then be that the district court was was correct on its ruling that it wasn't relevant because how we enter didn't matter was irrelevant and that there was no offer of proof about the voluntariness that the remaining in fact the district court specifically found that no evidence had been presented regarding the voluntariness of the defendant stay in the united states and in no whether you were hospitalized in ventura county in that year and then there was an interruption objection relevance yes i was and then there's a rule in that it's irrelevant it seems that under the state of the law if asked the defendant a series of questions about whether or not he realized he was really entering the united states when he came and also at sidebar he had crawford the defendant proffered in exhibit two the court containing the defendant's medical records and the court rejected that as being irrelevant and if you that is those medical records are in the excerpts of records if they show that he was in the hospital or drunk for a year no they don't in fact they show that the defendant had been able to enter into the hospital and and various doctors under its own power you were focused on the wrong issue but if he had been in the hospital in an out and tried for the year following that would be fabulous evidence on that point so now and that wasn't entered on that point even somehow you want  even there we should have the opportunity to try to explain that aspect away and that was not permitted here and then we could have gone to the next that once we shown it was an involuntary  moved to the next station on the calendar which is united states versus apothecary rodriguez rodriguez