issue is far closer by current nightstick and precedent the actions and case says clearly that the prosecutor need not prove any effect on interstate commerce and need only prove a minimal probable of fact and it's good that for the government that president exists because in this case they were not able to prove any effect on interstate commerce they need that case to make this a valid federal prosecution and what is the point of all this the point is that there was very very little federal interest in this case and why is that important it becomes important when we look at the id issue and whether the judge abused his discretion and in deciding that this was a case he dismissed without prejudice don't understand that at all your honour's what happened here was mr smith was transported by the state of nevada because he was serving of prole violation sentence out in the middle of the nevada desert to it high desert prison far away from las vegas for about seventy miles i didn't that number thirty five minutes there handing out how fast you drive certainly your honor but your honor you know it was not in las vegas he was out you know a they drove the u s marshal man all the way out to the middle of that of the desert and picked him up brought him back then after the court of parents they drove him out of the van back out there and this is not an inadvertent violation of the id this is  also well there was no there was no harm to mr smith because shortly after the defense counsel filed a motion to dismiss we brought him back into federal custody so what the government's saying as well there's no harm here because after we are caught we tr rectify the matter we tried to rectify the situation and that's it i can to a defendant going into sensing saying judge i shouldn't be punished for this because as soon as i was indicted i quit dealing drugs and it got another important factor of this case and this is when the federalism affix really comes in is that the government makes much ado and they're answering brief about the fact that look because we're able to prosecute this quintessential state court crime federally mr through our legislative acts and our judges who are elected in the state of nevada have a right to say look the punishment for a crime should be mr smith is an individual the very limited criminal record he's a very young man this robbery of the video store was this first violent crime do we not as the people of the citizens of the state of nevada have the right to say that this is an individual who should indeed be punished but perhaps rehabilitated that he should get a prison sentence sends yes he did a bad thing you should be actively make it so they'll never be a productive citizen never be a productive citizen if they know about it and then just reject them into our society when the sporty years old and has no skills and no chance to ever contribute to society and that's an important factor here you know that the id section nine one which talks about the factors that a court is supposed to look at says that those factors are not exhausted and important factor to look at here is what about comedy would about federalism what about respect to the state and why not when you have what is essentially a quintessential state crime why not let the state prosecutor what is the federal interest here so we have systemic violations of the id here and that first the mar court talking about the main purpose of the id is about prisoner rehabilitative programs well that he's laws been overruled to a large extent by boozman when you look at these men one fifty six of the us reporter what they aspects of being in custody is prison transport but the prison transport procedures are demeaning and very disruptive to the fans so mr smith did suffer prejudice suffered back and forth from prejudice under the government's rationale under the district court's rationale there really is no case that would allow for dismissal with prejudice under the id and i submit if you look at boozman the supreme court directly talks about this and they say look the anti shoveling provisions there are there for a reason and infuse when it was a one day shuttle they shuttle them into federal court they shuttle them back from federal court state court with excuse me and then in the end the supreme court said look and that is not a technical d is it directly goes to the essence of what the id is all about and in another case by this court united states versus read this court tossed out how the government should not be able to either intentionally or negligently disrupted the prisoners status under the act he was just a pretrial the cheney in the state he could have been shuttled back and forth twenty times but because they had a change without the government knowing about it then all of the sudden he can't be moved back and forth in to guy's name and social security or whatever and the computer tells you everything about their history and they're right all right but you're talking about something that happened in a period of like two or three days if they that was how we felt that it should be dealt with and that's why it's very spector specific and that's why we leave it up to the district courts of the side younger an abuse of discretion review i want to talk a obviously has an effect on all this stuff that's moving in interstate commerce there's a showing of actual fact and there's really nothing to complain about in that respect the commerce case they said you know that there is no better example of the police power that should be reserved to the states than how the state treats people commit crimes of violence i mean the point here is that there is no federal interest and if you give me one moment i want it clarif