united states was the portion of the d h s s form i two hundred and ninety six intitled verification of removal the agent who signed this portion of the form was unavailable to testify and the government presented no other testimony or evidence about what this section of the form meant about or about what this agent may have seen or done or known before signing and standing at the agent who determined that mr fuentes lopez was deportable finished his part of the paperwork on july th two thousand and fourteen in kingsville texas he testified that after he completed his paperwork he was done he speculated that perhaps he believed that these people went on to another deportation center after he completed his paperwork but he did not know the verification of removal section of the form is tha dated three days later on july th and it was the point of departure is brownsville texas there's no information in the record about what happened in the interim the records keeper who testified authenticated that this portion of the form came out of the a final but he told the court that he was a support person not an agent and that it would be out of his round to talk about what the form really meant this section of the form standing alone does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the mr when to stop as was physically removed from the united states in tw simply requires too many entrances to support this verdict on its record government sites in support of its argument locus the th circuit case and it focuses on a sentence in lopez that says a properly authenticated verification of removal is legally sufficient to support a finding of physical removal beyond reasonable doubt however when you dig deeper into lopez and the other th circuit cases it becomes clear that the th circuit never confronted a case like this a trial where the sole evidence gave more lengthy testimony about what generally happened when people were deported he talked about the fingerprint being put on the form of someone got off the bus and about the person being detained being walked across the border there was also testimony from the a file custodian that gave what the th circuit called a framework for the jury to understand their future removal from the three cases that lopez cites similarly do not confront the issue in this case it is important also that those three cases deal with warrants of removal which are different from verifications of removal in one key respect for this case warrants of removal which are not involved here per the agent to sign either that they witnessed someone being removed or that they are verifying some removal it does not permit an inference that there was witnessing perhaps minutes remaining perhaps if we were confronted with a word of removal it would be a different case i'm simply saying that in the verification from of where it does not allow it does not have the regular course it is as sam was found dead this person's file you say well that wasn't enough because he didn't testify as to what the reforms mean but i don't think that that's requirement or are fabricating a public record kept in the ordinary course so what's your argument on that it may not be required for authenticat document but when it comes to sufficiency this form alone this little piece of the form alone is not enough and i think that one doesn't lopez say it is and why shouldn't it be you arguing we need to reject lopez on that point to the extent that this court decides that lopez made that a holding yes i would ok ok and there's my next question when we look at the nature of the objections that was made i don't believe the topic we're discussing was an objection that was made i believe the objection was that the missing who was in the hospital at the time was inherently reliable because many years before and his youth he had been picked up on some able to cross to examine this witness because we think he's on reliable and therefore we can attack the form for that of the document so this document if it's properly admitted is itself proof of verification now it seems to me your objection to the admission of this document has judge lynch the only thing i can find in the record that indicates that you made that argument racial idea meant that it shouldn't qualify because each of those rules has a requirement that that the document be shown to be trustworthy or not to be shown to be unreliable however the exact language used and not wasn't met because of hundred and eight thousand and thirty eight arguments however we have been we have an additional sufficiency argument that even accepting the verification of removal in evidence that the evidence was insufficient to prove removal and going to little you know one inch person verification of removal what does it actually say about what happened and it's important to me that's what could the jury who don't have are the court's background the lawyers background with immigration law in florida into evidence so the question is whether this minute document was mission but the jury to rely on what it said to meet the element that the defendant had been prior previously removed was testimony from the officer who decided order that this person should be removed and then he said once that decision is made typically the person is removed three days later that officer filled out the top of the form in which he provided certain warnings to the defendant about how he could reapply for mission five years later and then the bottom of the form is entitled verification ever move it's dated three days later from a different location in texas and it is signed but it this person was about to be removed three days later this document was filled out i understand that the purpose of the document is to prove that the removal had happened in fact it's the best evidence of this because even if the pain attested by the odds that he would remember the removal of a particular individual when his job is to remove people every day seen remote which is really why we have this because documents like this are inherently reliable for purposes as to whether this is probably middle east is and you're a little glitch here in terms of there's no testimony that the person who filled out that form is a person with knowledge as required under subsection using that document you're using the document itself to establish one of the bases for admitting turning what is otherwise hearsay into non hearsay where they usually usually when we have here someone would say here's this form this is who fills out this section and then the verification section is filled out by the person who and they explain one or two sentences why that person is verification is someone who had because we know that i mean there was no dispute he worked it was no dispute any of those facts that i'm aware of which is why there was no objection he was unavailable at the last minute because he was in a coma and not that great so i don't take a firm position on that but i would think that in light of his title a stamp that was put on it looking at that document it has all of the in dish we have one of the agents who signed it testify all of the end dishes that this document is what it purports to be was there it is a matter conducted by the office while under a legal duty so i would think that it does it does meet the standard that argument was not was not raised the only question is whether the document proper and midon is deficient evidence for what it says which is an officer verified that he was removed from brownsville on that da is something raise that argument triggering plain our view i did not read it that way and i read them as making two arguments i read them in making insufficient evidence because you needed to be more and that that argument and that the judge should exclude it on that basis because of the prior to the fire and so no i didn't i didn't understand that to be raised in the  here as there was no dispute about the non testifying officer working for the government as a border patrol agent at his and thirty six issue before the court but suppose hypothetically there was a dispute about these issues do you who ordered removal that this is the form it's filled out it's kept in the regular course of business and educate questions suggests that the form at that point should be divided into two parts the st part being plainly admissible but this nd part that has to do with the verification of the removal so as a general rule i know that's the case i don't know specifically if some of the rule was in public records i wouldn't think it does yeah but that but then it's a matter of a request for redaction and us i'd like to start with this this the question about whether the document was made by a person with knowledge there was no argument specifically raised about that below there's no free standing argument about it but i do think that there are two ways in which that question is really relevant to each of our arguments that were raised i think it's relevant to the rule twenty nine dollars argument in the sense that what could the jury have inferred not this document based solely on seeing that little bar and similarly with respect to date the hearsay argument that the docking was insufficiently reliable to be admissible under eight or thirty six or eight then the question about you know that the defense made it showing about unreliability based on the prior  criminal history criminal record and the question about whether that's enough is related to what the government has shown when proffering the document and here they showed very little almost nothing about with how this piece this tiny line of the document was created what the person saw thought knew it's part of the context that goes into the decision that shows why the district court in this case abused its discretion by admitting the record despite the fact the prior criminal history