before trial should have been granted and then i would like to move on to the questions of statutory interpretation and the integration of that issue with the sufficiency of evidence and the instructional issue and i would like to preserve about three minutes for rebuttal there are three requirements for the grant a request to represent oneself at a trial that the request be unequivocal or not equivocal that it not be for the purpose of delay and that the defendant be fully informed that is that there be an adequate colloquy under florida to make sure that his waiver of his rights is absolutely knowing my client didn't make an unequivocal request to represent himself his exact words were i would like either a different attorney or just to represent myself and respectfully i see no distinction between that language and the language in united states versus hernandez which we cited in both sides understand is a case that matters here the government speaks of ambiguity in their request but i would submit that the record as a whole shows that it was not an ambiguous request it was unambiguous it asked to replace counsel before or to represent himself before and he had been he had very consistent concerns he wanted to run this st amendment and he talked about evidence that he wanted to exclude and  from this record would it be possible to make a finding that the request was made for the purpose of delaying i don't think so the government begins its discussion of that issue by suggesting that he was being manipulative that he had previously replace representation that it was going to be denied because he's been manipulative or because he did it for purposes of delay he didn't say that he said it was because they don't think the you are qualified to represent yourself and defendant right right and there was a concern in the record there's mention of the alcohol syndrome and i'm concerned about need to have that kind of a competency hearing so does that factor into our finding here about our conclusion here about whether the winner was knowing and intelligent it doesn't in part because the district court ultimately found that he was competent and then the court does have this record of a very extensive for read a column b that the magistrate conducted with my december to december but in the august in between sort of halfway between there there was the competency hearing that type of conduct and of course we're all familiar with that much lower bar but i but i have a little concern about about a sensitive issue of course that record is under seal i'm a little concerned about and it's clear to me that the district judge had knowledge of all of that history and whether it is appropriate for us to expect that he would necessarily have vocalized all of those findings  open or you know given the circumstances it is that i don't it's fair for us to consider i don't i think the record is actually quite sparse about the reasons for the request for the competency evaluation or the kurds finding actually do mesh that would be my idea i want to move on unless there are other questions to the other issues that i raised here relating to the sufficiency of the evidence we do interpret the is not in the text plain text is statute it's not contemplated and that is what we have here we have the use of interstate commerce me purely to engage in communication with a rd party adult and and i will later talk about how there was no persuasion occurring during those conversations but that is the issue that is one of the the intent to persuade i think we all agree on that and there has to be substantial corroboration of that and what we have consistently in the tone and the tenor and the pattern of the interaction between my client and th herself as someone who was interested in sexually abusing her daughter and that she was already engaged in the grooming so then what we would look for and this guy's just efficiency is  also participating in how to persuade the miner and if the record is studied very carefully you will see that he consistently is saying that he doesn't know or what are you going to do and that is very different than the cases them he cited in which individuals are suggesting to the rd party adults that they're communicating with well here's my picture here's a picture of my private  statute not necessarily the facts here that would support grew meaning or course a record of gauld and i think that that's probably the critical issue is how and what supports your interpretation of the statue we know numerous other with was adult predators essentially reaching out to people who are either or reaching out either to actual minors or because it's in a proper investigative  entice minors through an adult intermediary even to the minors well below the age of consent for talking about a young child and we're talking about using an adult who has access to that child your interpretation of said that's not criminal conduct under the  right what what the courts have done is to say that it is is they've sort of you rated the law of the ten which is required which requires a substantial substantial corroboration of one's intent to commit the offense of persuasion and so when a defendant is on the internet communicating with rd party adult making suggestions for things that she should do and my whole point with respect to the evidence here is that my client didn't make those suggestions they often were prompted by the adult but i think the courts have recognized that they do want in the case of adult intermedia  to allow prosecution under two thousand four hundred and twenty dollars to be but there has to be an effort overcome the miners will and that is represented by the interaction the defendant molested that would be criminal under the under the statute in your view he would have to intend to persuade them later by having the adult system in grooming and i don't again i don't think that was the dynamic of the interaction here now i understand i just write or offer right or offer the adult money or those are the different the inlet millon which is that th circuit case talked about these three different scenarios one is  offering money or in other words doing a transaction and then some of the cases involve interaction with the rd party adult as well as the minor counsel did you want to save any time  have caused the judge today he is not making a knowing and intelligent waiver what i'm trying to impress the court is there is an entire record here which includes a competency hearing which gave the cor concern both knowing and intelligent waiver as well as the attempt to delay and and under no finding by the judge that the requests of the present himself was made for the purpose of the navy and i think if the judge had tried to make that so i mean it would be clearly erroneous and hide and which he is a case that is much more like this one and that is a case where oddly enough the district where did grant a pretrial motion two to dismiss because  the evidence is insufficient as it was and that has to do with the fact that where the scenario presented to exists and is that of a minor who has already  groomed there is less there is automatically going to be less evidence needed other defendants intent to persuade because he perceives there is no need to persuade made was heavily weighted towards his intent to commit the offense and i can't do anything about the record on that it is clear that he had this interest but whether this was a case in which he was going