paragraph discussion in which the court analyzes the question of whether or not mr ramirez martinez acted before the offense was completed i e whether he acted before the individuals cross the border and what you have is an  the for a number of reasons number one it doesn't reflect any sort of consideration of the alternatives it doesn't appear to be a portion of the opinion that the panel itself intended for us to rely upon and the reason i say that is that just being wrong doesn't make something victim of the holding no i agree but the one paragraph that we're talking about never says we adopt the analysis for mangling it never says that we adopt the rule and aslam i got the whole paragraph right in front of me that yeah but the thing is that the one paragraph that talks about anglican aslam does not contain any language such as we hold we adopt that we conclude that based upon the fact that these aliens were going to los angeles rather than to some location in they're holding well i don't think that it's a question of magic words i think that we have a paragraph that states what the announce had reached the media destination then i wouldn't have this argument but it doesn't say that council words that language the media does the nation first appear in first appears in the anglin the withdrawn anglin opinion is there anything at all in the statute about the media destination that there's nothing in the statute about immediate destination and in terms of the jury instruction that the district court gave the district court actually went beyond the immediate destination and defined it in such a way i think to direct the verdict against ms lopez by saying that look if you're just in a place where you're resting or waiting for transportation and so on and so forth that that isn't the immediate destination and if the the instruction strongly suggested to the jurors true but i don't think that that fact is that as persuasive as all that we number one she did get the car i made it twenty eighth in the arrest was june the first it's not altogether clear that she got the cart before the entry because these individuals walked i think for two days and two nights and then they had to also wasn't the person that was supposed to pick them up initially in addition to the fact there was some other guy that came to pick them up that person had this code i think it was f twelve that was used to identify people who were actually involved in the offense and the guy that came the first time a day before ms lopez did anything in the case that guy had the code ms lopez didn't have the code so i don't think the jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that she acted before the entry in fact the district court even said that it wasn't even clear that she got the car before the was not complete under the jury instruction until they reached the immediate destination of l a let's say then was there a completed offense here at all no  goal if that's the case then they would have to be prosecuted for an attempt and you know the other thing that is that is important is this immediate destination stuff isn't in the indictment either so in this lopez's preparing for trial she doesn't know if the immediate destination is going to be el centro or if it's going to be nice angelus so you know this made up element which isn't in the in the indictment at all creates serious notice problems as well but i did make an alternative argued in the briefs which is that if we if we stick with the remarriage  mightiness approach and the offense is not complete then she could only have convicted convicted of an attempt and because she wasn't charged with an attempt the court should nonetheless find that that the evidence here was insufficient your primary argument is  i think that that you should hold that that portion of the opinion is dicta and that the offense discriminated at the border as was the case in solace torres and that if there was evidence to show that ms lopez acted before the  into the united states only then could she be convicted and i think on this record there isn't sufficient evidence to support that conclusion let's say a person and this doesn't relate to this record but i'm trying to understand the right rule or what it should be evidence from which you conclude that the individuals did things before the entry i think the in the senate and anglin arrived within minutes of the aliens getting to the drop off spot and then the the defendant emeritus martina's actually was already at the drop off spot when the aliens action to well i think it's i think it's a closer case i don't want to concede that the agreement itself would be sufficient but there certainly is an argument that it would be sufficient under those circumstances and the question of and when the talks about the agreement and the action before the entry is the part i think of america martinez that's binding you would say we don't really need to get into those types of issues here because we have to deal with the jury instruction well i  think you could you could adopt the alternative argument with respect to this you need to be charged with an attempt rather than a substantive offense and that she should go to rule twenty nine on the brains to pounce because of that or you could address the jury instruction issue i think under any circumstances the jury instruction in getting to that question just like any meeting in a bang theory is whether that actually was gone before the offense was completed there is no new insertion of a new element in this case there is no creation of an independent or the jury was what the court is asking and i can answer something else but let me ask the question one more time with of you instructed the crime was not complete until there is a destination yes your hon if it wasn't complete how she guilty of aiding and abetting your to our position is if he was aiding and abetting the principals who are bringing the aliens to their final destination now i understand that but i thought to be guilty of aiding and it's a continuing offense until you get to your final destination but that's not exactly what the instruction here said and that's not exactly what the americans seem to say the offense isn't complete as here i believe that the facts are the same as here in this case as in ramirez martinez we would not have to be concerned with the needed destination if we were charging the principle the one that physically accompanied the aliens across the border versus final destination well i do agree and i think that i think that what happens i think the distinction between angwin two from england one is that they probably foresaw that problem and they needed just a nation language and clarifying what they said was if there's you know not if there are those situations where the transportation is so remote in time or geography that the jury could find that there was no aiding and abetting then they're not guilty so i think that's where and when to the second the second one ok but the facts and anger were completely different because the mag when there was substantial evidence that there had been some sort of agreement before because angwin met those aliens within minutes of them crossing the border here we've got a three day lag of time i understand and i agree it but i think that that is in consequential to the finding at this point either in ink will order a mere is contrary to to the opposite argument say we're doing this because the argument was before their entry into fact they would not have had to look into the issue of aiding and abetting after entry if they decided that there was act asks right right well i think the distinction can be when and when the theory of viability is aiding and abetting as opposed to being the principle if it's a principle it's assumes it comes into the united states and if it's aiding and abetting you have to determine whether or not the crime is complete after they enter the united states and how do you come up with so the crime is complete one way for purposes of principle liability another way  maybe you can explain it to me you are like i know you and i would like to hear from staines he is a very fine lawyer and i've seen him many times and i'm i think you must have another one here at the space age if i can page twenty two of one sixty nine like twenty two started twenty two and he only got across the border line stops only briefly at a location not remote in time or location from the border for the purpose so purpose of resting her waiting in it for the transportation has not yet arrived at his immediate an extension of that by using that language that came from england to i don't believe that if i don't have any idea what you're  so remote in time and or geography free from the aliens entry into the united states that no rational jury can conclude that the defendant aided and abetted the bringing of the aliens into the united states such circumstances were here so with the district we're  the government to take my my point is very good with iraq we did not agree with these jury instructions in the first place and we did not submit and we cannot ask for them mike my position is that we are trying to defend the district court's decision to use them and emeritus martina's the paragraph that he read from about the discussion of continuing offenses let's soli a description of what the government's arguments were nothing in his holds that it's a continuing offense as opposed to the fence  that's not complete if the one paragraph that that i've been arguing against is a holding it says only that the offense is not complete there's no discussion of continuing offense at all in that paragraph and the supreme court has set out some very demanding standards for determining whether or not an offense is a continuing offense and there to see case and there's no discussion of that and no no reason to believe the statute would qualify under that unless your honor is having other questions i was the only additional point