the instructions that were given here and in this case instruction number twenty we have it's not defined what's a reasonable cause part of it is and according to the coward case that that that reasonable cause to believe should have been defined here in this case we from the outset as you know defense counsel objected to the statute as being unconstitutional but as you say as you understand the joe hockey's says that it is constitutional there is  requirement what we're using the card case to look at here is that the jury instructions that were given lest it is an objective standard because our angela hall both have this further instruction for the court to give which tells tells the jurors that they should be looking at the facts that were known to the defendant here and that's what's left out of this case we don't have an instruction to the jury about what reasonable cause to believe means and it's our position that that was an element of the of the offense it wasn't instructed to the jury and i don't think i want to just get the procedural posture straight at trial that instruction wasn't requested correct it was it was a request of the focus your honor there are proper was made of an instruction like that well in the way the way that i see what was the jury instructions what was asked for by the defense in objected to was in jury instruction number twenty and it has that language reasonable cause to believe it was objected to it as being overly broad they and only using it objective standard and that i believe gives us the opening to discuss that on appeal at this point and the reasonable cause to believe that you know should you raise the jury instruction argument in your opening your honor i believe i believe that i have raised it in the end the broader sense of where you have triple burden here and that is apart from the fact you like is to go with the answer instead of the ninth circuit it seems to me that we're constrained in our review standard because a jury instruction it was even asked for a trial and the issue isn't raised in the opening grief which under our standard procedural rules means that the way you know if you would first address raised in the in the essence of the argument in the opening brief about we're talking about the men's right we only deal in asking this is what we're talking about the mens rea of retirement of the statute here and i believe that the burden that we have is heavy but in terms of looking at what should what did jury should be instructed and what the mens rea requirement is here is the reasonable cause to believe was not instruction was not given to the jury and we believe that in that element that they should have been instructed on that your honor has been waived it was not raised in the district court it was not raised in the opening brief it was raised only in the reply brief and of course we have no opportunity we have had no opportunity to respond to that i would ask if the court is inclined to consider the issue is permitted government an opportunity to submit supplemental briefings on the issue i would also note that he is in addition to the copies in the district court and because the defendant never requested definition of reasonable cause be given the standard just plain error and even in the defendant's reply brief they do not address how this omission if it was error raised to the left plain error under the facts of this case and the evidence that was introduced finally even if we were to address that issue my understanding although of course i haven't had the opportunity to brief the issue my understanding is that when the issue is defendant's reply brief arguing or suggesting why an average jerk cannot understand what reasonable cause to believe means further in the joe hall and the cowards case those cases simply affirms the definition that was given they do not require at least the way i understand them they do not require that such a definition be given and of course that the the primary issue in both of th