the trial court in this case convicted mr nature of an offense that includes elements presence in the park area the parties are in agreement that mr nature was not in a park at the time of the offense rather he was in the administrative site an area located outside the western boundary of yosemite national park well i'm not sure that he was convicted for being in a park area i think he was convicted for being in the administrative side thirty six c f r so i mean i mean i'm just trying to make sure that i'm understanding what you're saying now you might argue that the administrative side also has to be a park area but there's another side to that issue thirty six here are section thirty four point five b twenty one is the specific regulation under which mr nature was convicted all that regulation does i say that thirty six c f r section two point three five see applies and upwards how however when we look at the plain language of section two point three five see it includes as an element of the one he says the secretary shall have supervision management and control of the use samedi national park and fact the l portal shall not be can part of the park but the secretary will have control of the l portal and shall publish such rules and regulations is he deems necessary and proper then it says that the regulations for protection of the us will then be within and administrate of sight and then suggests and thirty five thirty four point five that the following sections of paragraphs of the chapter apply to the administrative site and are hereby incorporated and made part of this part except as modified by regulations in this park and there are no regulations in this part which modify it so there i am i'm just saying all these regulations that would deal with whatever is going to take place in this administrative site i can find in two three five but it doesn't say two three five controls  all it says is you'll find the regulations and in fact if i look at these and i go to alcohol there and is what we're going to do about outcall and that alcohol is incorporated into thirty four point five so what's your problem it doesn't have anything to do with park area when we look at the plain language of two point three five c there is an element that requires presence in a park area that would rather make this whole regulation the whole system of regulations that the secretary enacted for help or tell it empty because they would never apply any of these specific regulations that the secretary of the interior attempted to incorporate that includes as an element presence in a park area would not be valid there would be no way of any person violating that regulation that's not all of the regulations that there's a lot of them and that doesn't really make sense right i mean that's can't possibly be what the secretary meant when carrying  authority congress gave i have no doubt that the secretary of the interior and tended to prohibit the public drunkenness conduct at issue here in this case but the secretary of the interior fail to accomplish that goal well you know all you're suggesting is that if i read two three through point three five that i can't read it without suggesting that what three thirty four point five incorporated there in had to also incorporate there in the presence in a park area isn't that what you're suggesting yes this what i don't find that any place in fact it says i'm going to take all these sections i'm going to apply them to the administrative side and i file want to modify them i will but one of the regulations which deals without color controlled substance is right there and we know what this regulation would be and it might be also put coupled to that which applies in two point three five because then it would be in a park area but it's also pleasurable to those which are in the administrative side it's problematic that the secretary of the interior did not simply rewrite the statute though and take out presence and a park area white right now the regulation as it's part of its plain language has that element of presence and a park area well so even if we accept that isn't this either it and a park purpose or an administrative purpose is really hard to understand how alp or tall which is there to support somebody isn't either for a park purpose or another purpose so i think if you look at basic rules of statutory construction the supreme court has counseled that courts are to construe statutes and a way that doesn't render language surplusage or redundant but you were just saying a minute ago that the whole regulation we base or plus a gender you're reading so either this little bit a plus for the entire thing is there plus it and it isn't it better to make a little bit surprised that you know in this case when we're looking at the definition of park area what we're really doing is considering a congressional statute so the definition of park area is contained in the regulations but national park system what constitutes a park area now the secretary i'm sorry go ahead yeah i think you're repeating yourself can i get to another issue are you changing the position that the statute does not th full to the administrative unit you don't disagree with the you know i believe that the secretary of the interior could have prevented at the conduct at issue here the secretary of the i merely adopting what's in the because he's adopted it major to apply but the secretary of the interior did not make that modification but let me let me go out this a different way i've heard your argument now this way do i only deference to the agency it congress is delegated to congress is the one who has put this statutory complex together and i have a show case of chevron debt directly in front of me that ambiguous and the agency tells me what it's supposed to be suggesting that unless it's totally out of the ordinary i propose to follow the agency that chevron so why wouldn't i give chevron difference here because the secretary of the in there of the interior does not have the authority to determine what constitutes a parking area ok honduras alone has authority if that's your best chance or if i can't give chevron difference how about aired difference hey you e r again it's a similar response here below however sponsors always well the secretary didn't give the authority to do it and so therefore it can't be done and shall make and publish such rules and regulations as he made the necessary and proper for its use and management if that doesn't give him the control that you say doesn't happen again the secretary of the interior has the authority to her head at the type of conduct at issue here the question is whether the secretary of the interior succeeded in that effort again this is a criminal statute criminal defendants have due process rights a notice they have they do process right to have the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each and every element of the offense the language of the regulation matters particularly in a criminal and so your due process argument is basically that someone who saw the set of regulations for  can't have alcohol would not understand that those applied in all portal and there is therefore due process problem my due process argument is that we look at the plain language of the of the statute that matters and here looking at the plain language there is an element that requires presence in a park good morning members of the court my name is michael tierney i mean assistant u s attorney in fresno and i represent the united states this morning one night in september two thousand and fifteen defendant adrian nature was dangerously drunk in a public area o that danger to public safety is precisely the type of thing that the secretary of the interior had the authority to prohibit and it's exactly the type of public safety danger that the secretary did prohibit the regulation was valid and nature's conviction should be affirmed now members of the court but you've got to do with this idea that she's put before us so you can make your best argument that because this is a president in a park area that it doesn't apply it's not in the park but in one thousand nine hundred six when the secretary developed rules for elop or tile it chose the secretary chose a whole bunch of provisions from the generally applicable park rules that would apply in el  tell lots of those things from voting rules to traffic regulations to this provision that mr nature was convicted under had the term park area in them and so when the secretary took those over they had park area in them and the secretary also said that all of the definitions in the code of federal red code of federal regulations section one point four apply in the administrative side and one of those was park area and so what the secretary was saying was that we're going to use all these regulations and we're going to use the terms found in them including park area and then so park area applies in the administrative site so the fact that it is your argument it's because it's for a park purpose because it supporting the park and that's how you get in the definition absolutely your honor and i think as you pointed out with opposing counsel that's baked right into the statute right at the beginning of sixteen u s c section forty seven dash one it says well what are we going to do here to enable the secretary of the interior to preserve the extraordinary natural qualities of yosemite national park the secretary of the interior as order is authorized to establish elp or tell in order that the utilities facilities and services required in the operation and maintenance of the park be located there so it really does two things first of all l per tell helps run the park because all that stuff that the park needs to run is located in helper tell and two it keeps the park beautiful because otherwise all that stuff would have to be located in yosemite valley which is very small and congested already with with a lot of visitors every year do you think we need chevron deference i don't think that we do your honor i think  language of the statute is enough to affirm mr nature's conviction because the authorizing statute as again you discussed with opposing counsel says that the secretary of the interior has the authority over this site and can make rules that are necessary and proper and as i said at the beginning of my argument this is exactly that type of of danger that a person owning land would have the authority to prohibit  the secretary said in one thousand nine hundred six when he adopted the he at the time adopted the regulations for albert tell listen this is a visitor management area it's got administrative services so of course it makes sense that you wouldn't want to have someone who's publicly and dangerously drunk running around that site without the person who owns it the secretary of the interior being able to prohibit it so we think that the plain language of the statute applies and can uphold the conviction based on that we do think that if the court finds that there's any ambiguity in the statute chevron deference would apply but it's not necessary to use either chevron deference or our difference  i i only spelled our because of her motto you say it and they don't know whether i'm saying our our what so i spelled it so that i would happen so i'm glad you pointed out that i have some german heritage so i would always say our i hope it's right or right and left the court has any other questions for me then i'll yield back the balance of my time thank you thank you very much i think you had all your time thank you very much and i think we understand your argument appreciate you very much case one seven one zero one six one a united states versus nature is submitted