telling a short story that i think illustrates the whole point to my oath to the appeal from mr belcher on several years back my wife and i took a trip to port the virus and we flew out of the airport and they want to mexico and when we arrive back  at the border and the officer at the border looked inside and he asked everybody their citizenship and everybody answered us and this question was asked was and i and vigorous here but he looked at the drivers and how long were you in all wrapped up that triggers a secondary inspection and all kinds of questions about false statements and saying false things to him to immigration officers and customs officers and things of this nature the thing that happened there is similar whether they're asking mr bell tron individually or collectively how much money is on the car just like in my example was unclear where they were asking the driver individually or collectively what do you have to declare how long we go to mexico so mr bell trond us to the second during inspection area and according to the facts they start counting the money and they finally do one hundred seventy seven dollars on him and mr bell try and then says oh by the way there's four thousand dollars in a diaper bag that my white house well the evidence to trial in the case that the only people who are given forms to sell are people say they have more than ten thousand dollars if at that point in time  convictions for both cash smuggling and for the failure to report he seems obviously came out of the confusion and the beauties of the questions rather than any intent or even if not in is a mistake not material to the investigation i do have one question i don't know your money colleagues worth the inspectors under any obligation to offer your client i mean you suggest i think that if they were being good guys they probably should have but is there any legal obligation on their part at the point where these conversations occurred to say and now mr bill you need to f requirements because it is very good at trial the testimony was confusing as to i think and i think even better under cross examination of a family is collectively carrying over ten thousand dollars on them they may not be you're not going to be nervous now that your bosses in the audience story or my mother because what mr bigger story fails to acknowledge is that the inspector inspector bear in this case actually informed the members of the people that were in the car of the reporting requirements he not only directed the people to the sign but he said it is not illegal to transport more than ten thousand dollars in currency at the united states but to do so you must fill out of court and then he asked each and every person in the car including the defendant whether or not he understood the law and he got a verbal decoration that he didn't understand the law and then he asked each and every person do you have any money are you causing ten answer for mr bell crown was now correct because he was heat was not carrying he might because of the crime but he was not carrying well but what he said was not what he was harry he said seven thousand dollars and he was carrying  tendency to influence remember it's the likelihood or tendency to influence what appears that i have less than ten thousand dollars so you know how to use me let me think my question i have less than ten thousand dollars on my person and how much inspectors to ignore him to let him pass through because once he says i have to fifteen thousand dollars or ten thousand dollars and then one stands they have to fill out their four so by what's the difference between seven and eighty one hundred for purposes of this statute if they're both under ten and seven get you kicked to secondary well the difference is again in this question was were really before the jury this argument was before the jury and the jury could not have convicted him and if they didn't find that he had he lacked the men's rate commit this crime so it's very ality is only a piece of this piece of this crime but the minute when he gets into secondary and they tell the money and they find that it's eight thousand one hundred seventy seven dollars in front of him the defendant says oh i have four thousand dollars four thousand dollars more i didn't say i have four thousand you're there there a there is four thousand dollars more in the in the bag but he did you volunteer that let me yes and then that's how you put responsibility for all the money and repeatedly took responsibility for all the money and then later admitted that he had split question was exactly what the defendant argued and and i can say that the jury could not or should not have convicted him if they didn't find the other mens rea to make that materially false state there are no other questions on this subject if how likely or anything on the lesser included issue or on the issue of the jury instructions i don't see any interest in either one of those thank you for your argument rebuttal thank you have seven thousand dollars but he really got over town might have made a difference but the difference between the seven and eighty one seventy seven is not material in terms of what the government do even if he says the government well verify the count or point to a secondary is true but if you decide i have one thousand nine hundred ninety nine dollars you know that may have triggered it if you just said you know you know screw you guys i don't have to tell you anything that might have triggered it ok so you know and all these things and the key point here made material true as to the basis of your affecting the decision and here it clearly isn't and the government didn't demonstrate that a trial and because it didn't demonstrate that the trial the jury basically had