deportation without and certainly had nothing to do with whether he was physically that was we were willing to concede that we attempted every effort to stipulate to that well you willing to concede that i think you were going further if i read the materials correctly that you were the stipulation would be sufficient the government has to prove its case but the government offered nothing to explain why it had to show that he was ordered deported it's a clear move after being told not to return and then being coming back by showing evidence of a reinstate an order and then showing that he was physically removed again they offered nothing to explain why that was relevant why that it is or system in their case of having to prove what added value was other than to put in evidence that has a serious potential and in my opinion did prejudice the jury so i do think that it is the outcome because this is the case and this is a rare case where a knowing entry was a was presented and it was essentially under budget defense that mr vang did not knowingly re enter the united states at least in this case it had a very prejudicial effect that was amplified by and this is why i want to begin with the government's states all the evidence even the government's only fact witness of the arrest is evidence of the desert with no very first no indication whatsoever that an individual with no they had and nine states  miles away in a different climate whether they knew they'd enter the united states on january thirty but at the other evidence that was in the record for example when he is confronted by the immigration officer officers what are you doing here and he says i'm he name so i don't think that there's any indication that at that moment mr being was lying or trying to conceal what the truth was and i don't think it's required that he had to explain to the officer certainly everything that happened at that point for a jury to what's been presented is absolutely misleading there was never any offer to stipulate to the identity of mr being salazar the only thing that was offered and this is from page seventy two the ex this was the person that was removed and the answer was and with regards to that we are not we are only stipulating that this occurred after certainly the government has to prove that he was in fact removed they can use the fingerprint or identification based our fingerprints that may have gone before the stick this deportation and at several points it was suggested the fingerprints you can use the two thousand and one war to deportation to compare the fingerprints because we're not conceding that this is it's just we don't want you to mention that it happened in two thousand and one what happened here is we were both literally going different directions the government from the beginning said we are going to prove that he was physically removed in two thousand and one because that was three years ago this is where we can find the detention officer that physically saw him or can attest to that the mr b now they suggest that we did prove that but at no point did we nor could we where we prepared they said that we mentioned the one nine hundred ninety are brought in the one thousand nine hundred six war the deportation that's correct and as i stated and recognized by both parties that was to compare the fingerprints from that document and the two thousand and one document to show that this was the same person the reference the testimony to that to that evidence the ninety six want to deportation was this is a document which that reflects an order of deportation and shows whether or not someone was deported never again he say he was deported he was physically deported or anyone witness that in closing if it did come out later when it was used as impeachment for his familiarity with the desert and this is very important to know how that came out very specifically the mr green was asked if he was familiar with the desert he said no is that's a little bit further if you entered before through the fence or correct never and then finally after a few questions the only thing that was asked you came in illegally after he denied it in two thousand and one and this is a good faith basis that was based upon the documents from the two thousand and one entry and was actually marked as exhibit number fifteen that he had come through the desert near c he finally he finally conceded yes there is desert surrounding calexico between there and indio california and that is why i was familiar with the desert then he went on to say but i was my other entries i ca impeachment that information that evidence was brought in pursuant to rule six oh wait not for a for b and the district court specifically recognize this is not for four be it evidences propensity evidence or as impeachment we do not seek to admit any strands of evidence about that nor to show that he acted in conformity there with there was no need to mr being admitted that he entered illegally the only question whether it was voluntarily or knowingly desert in particular in regards to the for a for b there's alleged in the two thousand and one deportation the record is very clear from the beginning the government had said we're going to prove the two thousand and one removal the ninety six documents are only to prove that as much as necessary and also to prove the the various statements that the contradicting names that he's given and also the thumb prints to prove the identity now i believe what all that's required are shown that the proceedings were valid and that he was subsequently removed as a direct result of that order that was a team and that's what we did we prove the proceedings to show that it was legally valid and then we should get two thousand the old chief case is not even applicable in that sent in fact old chief supports the government's position that we can present evidence that with more validly more accurate more colorfully show what we're trying to prove there was no one else there here necessary because he was not willing to stipulate to any element of the offense nor was he willing to stipulate to the identity what what i mean let me be more specific what evidence and even assuming there was any here what evidence shows that this was just harm well again we were the evidence was not presented to show propensity mr brain had conceded that he had entered illegally so other entries evidence of other entries was was not necessary and in addition in closing at no point did the did the government say entered in after one thousand nine hundred six therefore he entered in two thousand and one nor was it mentioned that he was physically deported in ninety six and physically the court in two thousand and one so the concentration was never to show a repeat of action in that regard what evidence was there for the drew to look at that would allow them to find  unsaid he saw him at the behind the fence on the canal and said how are you doing and mr vance direct response was fine i'm here illegally and there were photographs that were alluded to of aerial photographs of that area and expanse of desert between the city the us mexico border and that canal entry showing that there's definitely more than at least four miles into the united states from there received that that would be he would have been three years prior to the date and then we would have to go back because and actually we've since learned with the morales the scioto case we cannot rely solely on that reinstatement deportation it was absolutely necessary to go back to ninety six to prove that the due process was met but we did not point to that departure as the departure  for for being in its inquiry on cross i'll ask this court to look at united states versus davenport which is cited in my reply brief which mandates reversal if even with a good faith basis that's the if the government does not first inquire