morning your honor station car appearing on behalf of appellant arena rodriguez will be talking extensively about the categorical approach modified in the immigration context and answer the question that wasn't answered before yes the immigration courts if you apply aggravated felony and aprile of what the court held is that it's permissible to incorporate documents or otherwise would be judicially noticeable if there's an explicit incorporation in the defendant or aliens real and i'm reading off a page the very last page of the opinion right before the ascent that i understand the court will review to sort of case in for a determination of probable cause and determining if there's a factual basis for this sentencing and that is what the defendant agreed in his written flieger remit and that's pretty broad based based language that incorporates the holder to get a probable cause in our case i'm going to argue we have it distinguishing feature here and the record here in the government did submit records in support of its attempt to prove clearly established that my client was convicted a more narrow conduct because an r s four five three three three five everyone agreed was overbroad so asked to which i plead to set forth in exhibit one now exhibit want is the information which is found on page thirty six and on and when we look at this this information becomes the operative document is essentially in my mind and five different mental states here physicists and hype and or sell so they allege two different acknowledgements here they're alleging that he either has asked or he sold or he did both and that in my estimation is the crux of the government's problem here why they have not been able to clearly establish that my client was convicted of selling as opposed to the sas and he's been convicted of possessing then it doesn't meet the aggravated f to selling or did you plead to possess now the government will stand up here and rightly say that what's relevant here is what happens on page thirty six after line twenty six where it says two way and then it goes into this factual narrative describing essentially hand to hand cell that my client was involved so that the crux here is is that relevant is everything after it's which has that been incorporated by my client and i would argue it's not because unlike in p dead in the water even more so than perhaps i am now at the state of nevada had just not charged this and it was a conjunctive act element that they does that intentionally sell to timor then i would have an argument for the ambiguity injected into this proceeding the ambiguity which i'm arguing just frustrates the government's ability to prove this clearly established which is an onerous burden as cases like franklin explicitly talk about did their job but what i'm arguing is that those documents just don't pass the high evidentiary burden that the government has here and that is apparently based on this ambiguity that's injected into proceeding by strangely worded told i would have an argument here today and i'd like to reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal if i m issue in the case and even with that fact when the court is explaining how instead of jury instructions when you go to trial what documents would you look at or what statute would you look at to make a determination the court specifically said  to the court now here even here they're talking about the the factual basis for the plea of the defense argues that there doesn't need to be a factual basis for the police necessarily to state case and i think shepherds clearly saying as a federal court one of the or possessing a certain quantity without any necessary without necessarily having to prove any until at last that's the key crux of this case exactly judge is that what my argument is on page thirty six that lines twenty three twenty six and comp factual basis for the plea for the his pleas that i admit that the state can prove everything that's when the information that's not exactly what it says or aren't with all due respect on page thirty eight if you look at twenty fourth twenty three through twenty four lines what it says is i understand that by pleading guilty i admit the facts which support all the elements of the offense which i now plead to set forth in the exhibit he's admitting the facts to support the elements when i'm my physician is lines on page thirty six through thirty seven lines twenty six through five are surplusage that he didn't explicitly admit to that because of the limited language of incorporation in the plea agreement and i'm afraid that is what my argument is here and and that is what i'd like to submit th