limine our contention is that this intervention the facts of this case when the case began there was what is called a suspect vessel a go fast that was located through an aircraft in waters of the dominican republic thereafter  ship now your honor the communication with the ship they ate turned on the blue lights and through laos what i'm getting to did they attempt to determine who's flag the ship was operating and how the vessel was flag yes your honor and then they were and of my understanding is the people on the vessel wouldn't tell them one way or the other that right no your honor that's incorrect but did they say and they said nothing at that point the pursuit was in suit proximately for a number of hours this intervention began around between top thirty and one in the morning and the actual interdiction occurred at seven in the morning but  whalen government as part of their normal wonderful relationships with the united states of america said we won't tell you one way or the other correct that is correct your honor and ma continued thank you that have been a a number of hours after and the number of not equal miles they are after hour our point the particular point that we're trying to make in this case and the distinction your honor is that that determination of state the snus came much more time after the initial contact and our contention your honor and this is where i wanted to point out a again to just lightness of opinion as well as to the treaties is that at that point they should have contacted the dominican republic and and asked for permission under the counter drug operations treaty the dominican republic that that is a point of dispute our contention is that they were within dominican waters and even when they were in interdicted they were within the extended economic zone asserted by the dominican republic and its arch but you're trying to say that that question of whether the determination is made is different than whether there was constitutional authority past the statute that's your point yes but in a manner of speaking your honor if i may address that you know it is true that it wasn't filed on a timely manner however this was a complex case and there was some mounds of discovery and we informed the court that to be able to me i just want to not saying whether you have a good reason to have filed it late our precedent as i read i don't think you disagree with us suggests that the question of whether the statute can constitutionally exist does not go to the jurisdiction of the court to take the plea i thought that's what we have helped and  that might also go to the question of whether the lateness of motion to dismiss can be excused because it could be excused if it's a jurisdictional question but not if it's yes your honor but  at all was not jurisdictional well your honor what the distinction that was that we're trying to make in terms of that it was jurisdiction is that the n d l e eight gives jurisdiction of the united states over certain types of vessels and our contention is that the determination of statelessness was done much after that first intervention and under the treaties and under the summer until that american republic it should have been contacted to make a statement regarding the nationality that one of the members of the crew of the vessel asserted as is necessary under the mt and the and that basically would be the distinction that we're honor please the court my name is simply man rose and i represent the united states we accept you from the judgment of the district court for the reason set forth in our brief i would like to make sure i understand the facts correctly yes while the vessel was boarded was it that actual waters or was it in the waters of thought it was in international waters it was one hundred twenty miles off the coast of the dominican republic and my understanding is once you move one hundred i'm sorry twelve miles off the coast of the country you are in international waters it was first detected forty six miles away from the dominican republic when it was pursued and as the appellant has recognized there was a bilateral agreement between the dominican republic which would failed to heave to and the jurisdiction of the united states was established once it was determined that the the republic of venezuela did not acknowledge registry  its country but the yes and there was i'm sorry an aircraft observing from the air and the purpose was to as a team to go into pursue the vessel into intercepted and eventually challenge that can be asserted in an untimely motion because it doesn't address the court's jurisdiction of course you did you make that argument in your brief anywhere i did i did you  constitution rather than an argument that the merits are irrelevant about the concert statute because it was not entirely motion and it was a point and this is not a jurisdictional issue i don't really see the brief arguing over that district court properly determined that the motion should have been dismissed was because it was untimely because it's empty to address jurisdiction reading that in the record  was what you say on page fourteen of the brief ultimately the district i d s is motion to dismiss because it was untimely and because the indictment to not offend the district courts article three subject matter jurisdiction that's just a statement about what the district court brief you never seem to make an argument that they have for themselves to defend as part of itself or making any challenge the constitutionality of a statute by virtue of his family or the untimely filing of the motion to dismiss the indictment well my point in what i wrote in the brief was to express that the united states adopts the position of the court that it properly determined that the motion was untimely and i could have includ additional citations from the specific parts of the record in which the court say that but i thought by stating that this district court properly determined that the motion was untimely just as of the rest the rate then is just  the merits of the constitutionality of the statute which i would have thought the government's position is we shouldn't be addressing here yes your honor even if the court does address the merits the constitutionality of trafficking is viewed as an international crime and the drug trafficking in the creek seven zero five zero one the m d only addresses the fact that congress had an yes we held it on the merits of a constitutional authority to pass the statute our circuit has been silent other than a ruling about plane air we said is not obvious yes that's obvious already but in this case it was constitution and make sure that it comports so that and it authorizes the punishing of crimes they are committed internationally and i'm referring to article three of the convention paragraph one  aspects of the m t l eighty seven i believe which with the consent of a nation this sounds very similar to the facts and policy act where the parties were exclusively in just want to make it crystal clear government's position is that none of these issues are properly before us that's right and based upon the district court's determination that the motion was untime one colombian and four venezuelan nationals there were no u s citizens there was no connection between the united states and this vessel no evidence was on the record as to those the the alleged substances that were in the in the vessel or jettisoned off the were headed to the united states and i believe that that that is what the what the nexus requirement demands and in terms of the universal jurisdiction your honor drug trafficking is not recognized under universal jurisdiction it is crimes such as genocide and piracy is the court clearly stated this this is a structural problem that it has and i'm i'm citing u s versus llopis in this case and that is why would be the court heard and and this should be dismissed thank you