it absolutely whether this case could have been brought under section twenty two fifty five is essential to rather this court has jurisdiction under section twenty two forty one but mr bruce had previously only if that rule is constant it was his twenty to fifty five his first twenty two fifty five i believe it was filed in two thousand and eight before fowler had come down when it was their decision out of the six circuit dealing is a new rule from the supreme court of statutory substantive law that could not be released through twenty two fifty five and that under them rule the prisoner is actually in this isn't of violating the statu proper and i think that what's the significance of the fact that that's what we held and then matter was remanded to the district court in the district court or to really determine based upon the record as it existed that it was introduce additional evidence but in terms of what actually happened in taiwan those facts but facts are very different from the record in this case the does require in tyler on we manned up all the conviction under fowler because  the tampering in that case was actively working with a state official who in turn was actively working with federal officials and you then acted cooperative relationship under the terms of the statute itself section fifteen twelve itself is no pending federal investigation and the victims we're not talking to anyone at all not state officers who are working with federal officials as in tyler and the crimes that these victims report of the witness why should we do that if what we're looking at is reasonable likelihood and there are things that happen after the fence that make it appear that resort federal authorities with the inevitable why isn't that relevant why should we freeze it at the moment  there is evidence suggesting that when the tampering occurred there's a possibility of federal involvement that evidence could perhaps be enhanced by seeing that it actually federal involvement actually happened on the scene of a commercial establishment certainly has possibility of the a t f involvement it certainly is the possibility of federal involvement but any federal crime has the possibility of federal involvement and the supreme leader made clear again if our dead essentially all state law crimes are close certainly do got concede there on earth i think that the evidence of what actually happened is only relevant to the extent that it relates to what would reasonably rightly at the time of the facts sufficient evidence of all of that in the record such that a jury could connect those dots and there's no remedy because the gravity of the crime crimes committed come into play here in terms of making a determination whether  the likelihood of communication to a federal officer was more than remote outlandish or simply hypothetical rudolph does because there's no suggestion of the record that when problems are particular least serious or federal authorities even our question the reasonable likelihood that the the victims wouldn't some point have communicated with law enforcement if it takes state law enforcement i know for years taken notice and would have gotten involved and there's no suggestion in the record that that was the case that crossan a feast be arson robbery different thousand dollars of what occurred being with bruce family or anything else about this crime  types of threats and intimidation that even preceded the offense that the victims here had they survived i either would have opted to suffer poured on to federal authorities aware that the the suggestion that the witnesses who were feeling purportedly intimidated were hesitant because they only want to speak to someone federal this is just in that federal officials really made a difference and when you close the door you're  answer that question we can look at subsequent evidence and that's what we we did in tyler in this court did in tyler and these other circuits with that have considered this type of power inquiry at the time as your honor pointed out there was this pattern that was nine right and carson adopted the standard as far as we could tell the modern circuit standard that was the rejected infallible it just seems to me that there's there's something wrong here with a test when you you can't make your claim in the sixth circuit you can't make your claim in i'm unfortunately quite familiar with some of those certainly in the six circuit and i may be i may have some knowledge of the on the proceedings of those get in those quotes if that's if that's what either the subject matter is but but the bottom line o scared they were terrified that's in the record the jury was told all of these witnesses told the jury i was too scared to cooperate with the state because of who these guys were and what they do can we take account is the record for our purposes include and so i don't know i don't think the question was asked specifically because charlie or various was coming after you thought bruises were going to come get you i don't know that it was connected in that particular way but that's that's kind of the bottom line of our approach to this record though is that connecting the dots as opposing counsel said the dots here we believe could only be conducted runway and it's this pattern it was the theme of closing arguments and opening arguments  particular opening arguments of this assistant us attorney he spelled it out for the jury you know we had a hard time with the state investigation and so we had to do a federal investigation and he explained this is why we do a federal investigation you bring them to the grand but the chances with the courts discussing fallow are the chances of of the fact of this victim talking at some point with a federal official at least once and that has to be more than just remote outlandish hypothetical so what you're saying in effect is the fact that lives is a theft of muscle shells that were stolen for purposes of selling their stake commerce would be a factor he would be making that argument as well small business for themselves and the producers came and rob these must shows whether it sounds like a lot to opposing counsel people in this courtroom today it was a big deal everyone involved in this case a few thousand dollars of us shows was a big deal  i think because this corks assessment of the merits in tyler i think it was balanced up with its sense of whether section twenty two forty one jurisdiction was appropriate this court in determining whether the safety was trigger with it whether there was a sufficient basis for an actual innocence argument and in so doing this court applied the power standard on the merits and held that yes given the existing trial record bear there  actively working with federal agents if that is not a reasonable likelihood of federal involvement i don't know how this is the government that is near it but there was a lot of testimony about witnesses scared iraq but ultimately i understand fully i think that this is the key point which is was the federal involvement reasonably rightly response to all of that and could jury find that even if this court accept the inevitability of all