undocumented person those prior acts didn't go to the elements of knowledge and in fact they went to different purposes such as propensity because the district court allowed these par acts to be introduced at trial thousand for the purpose and the sole purpose of knowledge the government claimed that this was the only disputed issue and it is the only just beat it into the problem with the government's claims however is that one there was no logical my my question to you and why don't more cases even if there were no connection between smuggling inside a container and driving a couple of people participants perpetrators of that first smuggling incident and i got teresa's back again right and that that seems to me to distinguish a lot of us i still find it troubling right well i think if anything the like they did in this case so you would if if she if she drove to ukrainians across the border and the government tried interviews that is now a huge of a case where she is now would still be good might be an effective defense in front of a jury even in light of the prior act question is whether the claim of that she is due makes the prior act relevant to what  that lie was repeated alleged lie was repeated over and over and over again by the government in its opening as her progress when eighty two to one eighty one and during its directive after knox at two twenty and government use it repeatedly during its closing arguments they said it she lied about them being family members in two thousand she's lying about them being family members again in two thousand and three when they were referring to that whole scene with you know what the officer said on referral the secondary and what she said that it was far beyond use for knowledge and then sort of once the government got it and then it just went kind of whole hog the response did how does whether these people ukrainians or members of their family have anything to do with knowledge that knowledge of what the other thing is these were admissions of the different i mean that's evidence it didn't just come out in there are a couple more times where the district court was vigilant on this issue it's a record two fifty two to fifty three so if the defendant is on trial only for the crimes charged in the indictment not for any other activities then extra pressure for seventy six jury and that's the same response that we would offer here and we would also point out under four or three another concern is whether this takes an undue consumption of time and it's interesting before trial i think even before the anything not only you know the parties were vigilant to try to minimize these four or three concerns not only did the jury have repeated instructions that they were only to use this for a limited purpose the government intervention in the minimize the amount of time was brought in by the government in its opening statement and in its case in chief and regardless if it's an admission that doesn't change the fact that it's impermissible evidence in their opening argument throughout their case in chief and the way they used it was by the the one statement that one statement made by the primary officer because of that one statement the secondary officer at two in two thousand also asked mission hour about it and allegedly lied again then that statement made his secondary officer was then transferred to the two thousand and three secondary office or was she was asked about it