or coming because what we have here is hearsay statement that's made in eight or a criminal investigation to suspect that illegal part of let's see so it's i guess it's conceded that this would go back on the supervised release right ok on and then what indictment and the verdict form means the case is being submitted to the jury on only on the validity of the over six removal it is a jury would reasonably likely understand the inquiry to focus on th but i would actually origin or look at it not only as an apprentice but also as a situation where there is a real possibility that the only theory and which the illegal ran through charge period that's a penalty but the whole charge was submitted to the jury was only based on all six or more if the court agrees with me on this then the whole charge has to be dismissed if the court doesn't agree with me and the court decides to do a harmless error unfair to us to say well you should've objected to the ninety three more well we don't really have a maybe a that this is what the government is basing their case on everybody perceives as assumption in those six removal is a valid basis you know th criminal conviction that sort of the date every move will be something that has to be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt your friend after that came out there were a number of cases these sort of already in the pipeline where the united states had our case and those cases is that here rather than essentially leaving the removal date off the indictment altogether the united states included a removal date that was subsequently found to be invalid based on the change in this for its case good as to the one thousand nine hundred three removal of the united states and as your three three seven introduced in order to show cause immigration judge to order an awards of deportation with the defendant's fingerprints none of which was  defense was that was actually presented at trial it was the same for all three of the removals the defense was that's not me i'm the guy whose name is on the card there was never any differentiation between the ninety three or the two thousand and six the entire defense was you've got the wrong guy so there's no reason to believe that the jury would have sort of found that he was really based on the uncontested two thousand and six documents but not the one hundred ninety three furthermore in salazar lopez this court considered a similar situation when there was two removals presented to the trial one of them good for many purposes and one of them that and the court simply focused its attention on the good one and said is there overwhelming uncontroverted evidence in the record as to that one and then affirmed on the defendant went to secondary inspection meant that this was going to be used sort of in a criminal proceeding but that's simply not the case this was this was an identity stone that used to run people scream to friends when they come through the  determine who they are and if they are who they say they are this is primarily an immigration based procedure for a busy port of entry and there's about ten steps between that and any eventual criminal prosecution much less g point details so what we're doing is we're putting the same examination which i think the evidence in the record here already says it's a subjective examination and human with a step further from the defense by put it in the black box so not