their parents were born it did not i believe under eight us eleven zero one and and us safe for two no one provide enough evidence that there wasn't a possibility that in fact they could  individuals could in fact not be aliens i explained that in my brief the basic fact being that even if a person does not know that they're u s citizens that one of the parents might have been because one of the grandparents may have been the united states  it might be possible we do understand that the place where the person is born is not conclusive of a niche otherwise we wouldn't bother asking where the parents were born because that wouldn't matter if you know so in theory i guess you could say and again i guess my point was simply that the fact that their parents were and were not born in the u s does not mean that they may in fact not have been united states citizens correct but that's like saying somebody is here today whose parents were born in russia they may well be a u s citizen but they also testified that they were born in russia that they were here without authorization and that they weren't citizens wouldn't that be enough for the jury to say i think they might be an alien your parents ever live in the u s and if the parent never lived in the u s there would be no way for transmission with united states citizenship did you provide the court with instructions saying it's lightly different you know the elements are satisfied upon the crossing of the border and the crime itself terminates once the transporter the initial transporter drops picked them up and brought them to the house and the government argued both in and especially in their closing about the immediate destination meaning that the jury could find that offensive the fact that he is a guard and working in maintaining the drop house an indication of these burning bring into the united states because the purpose of his being there is to provide some surveillance to the dropouts to make it a secure location where to please people the refuse of a sort of accessory after the fact where the the what the jury was able to fuck you the jury could have found and based on the incorrect jury instruction is that it in a better completed offense because the jury could have found it and it's hard to tell there's information here that he lived complete either in the desert upon his dropping off then he can't have that after the fact record right and now the government did argue that there are there was this but based on the jury instruction jurors could have found could have this believe that i still found them guilty because they could have said well he was there at the house when they were dropped off we don't care if he showed up right then and there at the same time as they did or if he'd been there immediate destination the other one said right at the point of entry right thank you thank you a maintenance guard in the drop house was aiding and abetting the transporting of these illegals from the point of drop off to what we call the drop house where they were held as hostages the wor were improperly instructed in terms of plain ever what's wrong with that argument what's wrong with that argument as it fails to appreciate the fact that the defendant was working at this house maintaining a place for these people to offense is the first leg of the relay ok and so your first person is coming up to the border and crossing the border and stopping somewhere in the desert with these people your next person runs the next relay leg of the relay and then thing the crime according to lopez the crime terminates when they get dropped off in the u s correct that is correct i want under your theory everything that happens after that and any individual who might participate in any downstream activity is liable as an aider and abettor  suggestion i'm paraphrasing that beginning there and this is the direct quote we do not decide that if a smuggling operation quote relies on and quote a secondary comma stateside transporter in the sense that the secondary  transporters agreement to participate induces or encourages the commission of the initial extra tauriel quote brings to close quote offense and the secondary transporter intended to so induce or encourage the commission of the crime and abetting liability w never lie those are not the facts of this case and we do not consider that question here i guess maybe maybe the real question is this is whether in line of lopez you know what  paradigm because we're on plain error of you here your honor in the defending carries the burden of the stablish in prejudice and the evidence in this case was overwhelming if you look at the transcript of the phone call and i have to apologize i did not do enough in the brief to highlight this but if on pages to all foreign to all five of the supplemental x serves they pretty much kidnapped them when they came down and later on down the page indicates that he's talking about that happened when they were at a hotel down in all tar ok then you go know manning on a permanent basis the drop house where these people were held hostage yes then they wouldn't have been brought to the spot of the first drop off and therefore he  now but doesn't lopez tell us that his presence at the at the ultimate drug house is only relevant to moving people within the united states mexico and knew that he was the guardian the final the positon henri and therefore they couldn't have started the trip without him being there as a guardian where's the evidence that he knew they were coming from mexico and they get picked up they get transported to l a and now my logic and work in the sweat shop is this what shop owner you know aiding and abetting illegally bringing aliens because they know they're going to be coming across and well it can be a conspiracy as well i mean you know one of the things that i think lopez doesn't acknowledge enough is that people often blur the roles that they play in these different things one of the witnesses even testified in this case that the guides actually came into the house immediate destination task would be hard to argue it may be hard to argue but he never made any point other than i was right but his his argument was marci all  after material witnesses in this case two days after they arrived that was his argument the jury flatly rejected that argument based on overwhelming evidence from the neighbor from the material witnesses from the transcript the things that were said by the defendant in the transcript indicate that he was there waiting for these people well before they ever even crossed the border much less got dropped off in the desert and you know another way to look at this is if you've got a group of people involved in robbing banks and you've got one guy in charge and he organizes it and he tells a couple of people look you're going to go rob this bank any tells a third person i want you to wait on the corner of fourth and market and you're go find two people they're going to come running down the street this is what they're going to look like your job is to get them away from there and get them to a safe location now that you say charge conspiracy that certainly conspiracy can cover whether it ends at the border or in the desert a few days later because they said they walked for three days without a doubt this house was in operation there to collect the money and the money is what's going to encourage these guides to do the act you know that they're not obviously didn't charge them with hostage taking right and we also kind of charge harboring and so on but you reach a point where you start getting a little complicated and we did things the way we did for a reason because this was a seamless operation and we wanted to be able to show that and you know again you got to keep in mind the meaning of aid in the bat it is to encourage somebody to support them to assist them before the offense is complete and these people are being assisted and increased before the offense is complete by knowing that they're going to be paid knowing that there's going to be a place for these aliens to go after they get across the border and so there's two roles that are being played by the defendant at this house to encourage those people before they even act folks despite the fact that the guideline for hostage taking resulted in a life sentence calculation the judge was looking to sentence these for this particular defendant to less than fifteen years which is what he got the third count bringing in triggered a hear that it would result in a different sentence with those counts really dismissed or the defendant found not guilty proof of the government brief and they talk about this mr avlon yanna speaks into the phone and talks about how apparently he was also brought across and he had to stay he was unable to leave it seems to indicate in that conversation obviously that he ended up maybe getting into this based on fear something along those lines i wasn't at the trial so i couldn't tell you exactly how it all went but what that points to is the jury could have found on th your instructions that he was someone who was brought across and couldn't make a payment so he decided to help out somewhere along the line maybe right then and there and that's why he was at the house when when when the other individuals w hostage until the parish paid off what the jury might have found that he came into this agreement at the moment that they arrived at the home meaning after the offense was completed so they were allowed to do that under the servicers testimony had been there for