i think it's still morning  pornography film and some very serious crimes the question that we were raised was what is the minimum  court must impose a sentence is it fifty years or is it twenty five years and the court concluded it was twenty five years because under the federal statute this prior  films doesn't go to him put it back to file a couple of motions because i read it in the ordinary sense of the english language which says that any stray modifier following integrated list modifies them all well toward the end of our briefing the government presented this supreme court case it's names popped out of my head at the moment which talks about the less you know if withing the string modifier they said that the last modifying event only was the only one that counted but they didn't say anything about the question that's before this court and i think i've given in strain the fellow in that had a crime which was sexual abuse but it wasn't sexual abuse against a child in the string modifier as sexual abuse sexual assault sexual assault against a child and he said well mine wasn't against the child in that against the child modifies every other modifier in the list and the court said no it doesn't under the last ancillary rule of lockhart's facts weren't the same as ours because he did have a sexual abuse prior conviction we don't use was sexual abuse ours is not so we are distinguished factually that's why i can go to justice kagan branes her and her argument which makes sense to me it also the construction in the reading of that it must be  part of the reason i can assume that is because it wasn't an ambiguous even to the trial court i think ahead of my brief and that's all right as to the stat i read through this position a number of times now and it perfectly clear so for that reason i think that the twenty five year is in their little boy in this case either because the statute  years of prison but must be on the big it was simply clear and here they are not the way i first read it and i think ordinary construction of the english language would say that  s the child protection and safety act it's clear the whole body of this segment was about protecting children from sexual assault and if you commit once you're going to jail for fifteen years to be committed twice you go in for a life hearing doesn't have anything involving sexual abuse or abuse of a child or anything that relates to that number under which all of these things come our basic argument here is that lockhart controls the decision also there was a case mccoy which i can get into as well by this court which also tends which does support the government's position here but if we could talk about lockhart first for a moment buckhart interpreted sr statute two to five to be two which is written for purposes of this argument in th using the same words as the statute here which is in two to five one eat the defendant's argument that lockhart shouldn't apply is based upon a presumption that what we've got here is an integrated list of statutes that there's nothing nothing to differentiate what's listed in the federal versus the state and it's not a question that you really need to contemplate because it's already been answered by the supreme court in lockhart the court as its beginning its analysis in explaining how it's going to handle statutory construction says essentially that context is king and starts to analyze the internal logic of that statute and it makes a point of saying there are three categories involved in that statute one is for folks who haven't had a prior conviction one is for folks who've had a federal conviction of the statutes that are listed and the third category is for state conventions that meet the description that mr mcglennon refers to as the modifiers the supreme court itself broken up into three and therefore it cannot be considered as an integrated list and based on that alone the defense argument should be rejected but there's another reason that their argument is wrong as seen in lockhart if the defendant was correct and absolutely the basis of his argument is that there has to be a parity in treatment and scope of the federal and state statutes in other words whatever limitations apply to the state statutes in the modifiers would also apply to the federal statutes yet the supreme court in response to defense argument and lockhart said look we  sets out distinctions between the scope of the federal and state statutes as to what's covered under two two two two five to be and points out for example that obscenity doesn't have an analogue in the state listing but it's very much part of the federal statutes listed if you don't have parity then you can accept a defendant's argument because that's the very premise upon which he's arguing from if you look at the statute itself there are two other reasons which contradict the defendant's argument and one is that if you look at the listing of of the state i'm sorry federal ninety one hundred chapter seventy seven well that tends to show is that congress wanted and wanted to control the scope of the statutes as mr mcglennon argues they could have done it by  adopting coverage for all of chapter seventy seven but rather only the one statute in it dealing with sex trafficking trafficking of children or by by force fraud or coercion it shows the congress when they wanted to make it specific they could so what that means is if you look at the stat chapters that they've listed which are much broader than the modifier after the state statutes you have to assume that congress was mistaken and i don't think there's any interpretation or canon of statutory interpretation it starts out with the beginning that congress made a mistake well say that will be a mistake well under his view what do you say would be the mistake the mistake would be that congress made in listing four chapters very broad chapters that cover more behavior than what's found in what mr mcglennon refers to as a modifier for the state convictions yet when it came to chapter seventy seven which is not listed but rather only fifteen ninety one it deals with sex trafficking of children and understand what the mistake was a mistake i'm not saying there is a mistake what i'm saying is you'd have to assume there was a mistake mistake that congress could specifically limit or did specifically limit one provision related to that evidencing adopting if you wanted to for a second mr maclennan is argument that they knew how to limit it but yet in the other chapters they didn't why would congress limit one chapter to one statute but not the others the other off other chapters have behavior that's broader than the mod congruity in the treatment of of the statute in the coverage which i don't think you can assume that congress intended that the other chapters have broader behavior not all of them but most of them obscenity for example and there is no attempt to limit it as there is with fifty ninety one in the question is that mr mcglennon is argument is correct why would you limit one but not the others i don't know if i mean or start ok ok and the other thing is other argument i make is that if congress had wanted to make an integrated list they knew how to and i would point out as an example and forty which talks not about which doesn't separate out state conventions and federal convictions but just talks about convictions by any court for and then goes into certain behavior and the structure of th statute just seems to fly in the face of an attempt to limit the federal statutes as you would the state i can also point out as we did in the mccoy case from this court  that the if the defendant in that case had been convicted of possession of child pornography he had a prior for obscenity under chapter seven one chapter seven one was eight is one of the chapters listed the court basically said and then quoted from the district court that this conviction meaning the of sanity in a numerated federal offense in title eighteen chapter seventy one triggers the enhanced penalty in the court then quote the district court that basically said the bottom line is he was convicted of this offense therefore the and handsome applies and less the court has any other abuse so you make the particular finding this conviction is is related to sexual assault which is what the modifier says any of these offenses have to be related to sexual abuse in mccoy