it in that way it's not but if you look at it put that's a factual way it actually turned out you know actually what happened was is the the action was committed sixteen months before we had seven astra calendar year so we went to trial one day of trial when we were ready to proceed the government said whoops there's another theory that we can that we can advance thank you my question my question it right you were given that extra fifty one nineteen for the no three they say even assuming petitioner is correct that his offense constituted theft rather than bribery it would still be an aggravated felony so what they're telling you is that if remand this case  hits that this point of just junction one part of the men would take it outside the realm of the aggravated felony and one would keep you inside the realm of their grade felony here not in the realm of bribery and therefore in the realm of bag of ated felony so i'm having a if you understand what i'm trying to ask is pretty rambling does it make a difference here the fact that that would be something that would fall outside commercial bribery because the benefit would be solely to him would have no influence at all on the employee or on the master or the principal and therefore it would fall outside  bribery and in order once once you once you accept the fact that you have to look at the facts then you then then you see what occurred in this case which was mr natwar concealed mc what was going on and he stole from them by by hand writing checks rather than going through the check writing procedure which would have been required for  accept something of value an employee accept something of value and does something to effect the employer if i understand you right then you're saying that it's a disjunction in act tried to ask about earlier which was specifically as to the two kinds of mentoring you said it's still relevant and then you went to what appeared to me to be a discussion act this race i'm just trying to make sure i understand your argument i think you're  case i think the definition is is too broad to broad it probably applies to a public official this case your assertion is if i steal but i steal because somebody tells me hate we can set this up in a way where if you steal and give it to me i can give money back to you but that's not that kickback is not a kin to bribery because i took the money in the first instance gave it to somebody and then they gave it back to me it's the fact that i took it in the first instance that makes it different from if they just gave it to me says that he concealed from casey and see what was going on and he did what was going on and there's so there's no relation to the employer there's no action and so on in fact the indictment is is personally what example were best the case that that fact that the third person is involved with you kickback scheme and that's called rather than something else well in fact this could have been in the same section if you look at th have a bribery but in this case you don't because in this case there is no relation to action on the part of the employer if you the farm robbery is not involving and in effect on the employer then that's the president you're going to have to live  with but my submission to the court is that the proper definition of bribery is that it is the action of an employee corrupt action of an employee which effects the employer and in this case it didn't happen then the second section is a one week and that's the one he was specifically convicted under and that you know is where i'm accepting anything intended to be influenced or reworded in connection with transactions of your employer check writing system and writing checks by hand and in connection with paying out money for a presidential work that was not being done and was receiving was receiving exchange for bypassing the normal check writing why is that just that well he agreed that he did it that he was influenced by it you can see it influenced by the money that he was receiving so he agreed that he was doing it that he was and that cold war promises to help him pocket money and that that promise of pocketing money influences him if i've understood the argument i think i understood that's how you get the bribery r was no influence on the employer and the definition of commercial bribery is that it must influence to be employer or be intended to influence the employer and it was not intended to influence the employer the guy stole money from casey honestly and he did it fealty to was the bribery portion of the statute in the indictment he said i did it but that is the piece of the statute it's an issue and it's the only piece of sedition and that's evident on the face of the charging document and the work demands for the benefit of any person which would mean himself doesn't have to have any relationship to the employer goes back to which judge ambrose talking about the definition of blacks versus the definition of the government  page three ninety five three ninety six three ninety seven will see that if you use the modified code and if looking at the facts of this you will see that on work for casey mc without the knowledge of casey n c the checks were done without the knowledge of casey n c had happened to or go on to his bosses and said i'm going to write these checks out to defend why they would have said no that's why it's not a book that's why this case does not involve commercial burglary because you have to apply however reluctantly maybe you have to apply your own precedent which is the modified categor