the supplemental subtle briefing so without reiterating the whole brief as i'm sure your honour's already read it i would just say that we would submit that it is a structural error because he  are i have clients sometimes that they will i only serve thirty days even if the ultimate penalty could have been more than a year and a day so there are any number of defenses that if it could bring up when he starts convictions and whether that knowledge we didn't agree that this is structural air and i think the government argues it's plain air and you know what the last prong of plane air that it will that it impacted his substantial rights how do we how do you get around that well obviously we believe that it would gary left under the assumption that knowledge of this felony status didn't have to be proved so he was never afforded the opportunity to raise that as a defense to consider knowledge of felony status when he so it goes to the or of a knowing involuntary guilty plea and if you don't buy the structural error it's probably irrelevant that he wouldn't have  that knowledge of his i'm sorry a loss or a tradeoff there the true nature of the defense and that's what i was trying to get out that he didn't know the true nature of the offense against but i think that the plane error doctrine is met in this case because clearly an element wasn't ever told him it was planned dykeman it wasn't approved by a grand jury and that's certainly something that would in fact the ensure the defendant receives more severe punishment if he commits a set of felony offense which is what you're arguing or facilitates another person's commission of an offense involving a firearm but even to facilitate another offense he would have to have known that marijuana was there or that i was smoking marijuana lightly but that's a simple possession case that's not a felony because even the district or found that there were two charges did the record ever indicate what he had a large amount of cash as did dixon and dixon admitted his cash was regard to drug sales did mr gary from the car washes and the chair and his paycheck from little caesars there is nothing to refute anything in the record about half and frankly the cash is the only other thing besides the fact that he was present and are he had been present mr dixon related to count one to which he also but that was a simple possession amount of marijuana mr very readily admitted that he has a problem with marijuana smoke marijuana daily for many many years but there is no evidence that he's ever dealt there is no evidence that he had ever seen in the trunk of the car there is no evidence that he knew mr dixon had the marijuana there is no he didn't own the car there is no evidence that he's to the r v only facts that were found by the district or are that he was present in the car with mr dixon and he had a gun and it appears although there were some back and forth about that that mr davidson and mr gary or in front of a motel room the cops drove around and they parked because they all of the smell of marijuana according to the  it appears that mr barry put his gun route that way and there's no evidence that he could see into the trunk or knew marijuana was back there and all the facts that will recite it by the government alone even some of the district insufficient because he he would have just because he had a god and was present somewhere where there was marijuana there still has to be some knowledge some intent on his part to distribute those drugs or well or or the drugs in the money and everything in order to facilitate dixon's commission of distribution that's correct what your response to that there is still no knowledge there is no evidence that mr gary had could there be a scenario no one had a gun one had drugs they both knew they were in trouble so they stripped the go and the drugs in the back and that could be done without here you have a knowledge be enough to meet the government's pardon here correct in this in these circumstances where someone else was in the car and plane everything that had to do the drug paraphernalia the and the government would have would have to somehow connect that gun to mr dixon's distribution crime correct or and there was some or that he was doing it right that there was some conspiracy between mr gary and this rejects and they have agreed to do just that mr gary part of the reason he was fair was to help facilitate mr dixon is drug distribution but there's just nothing there is nothing  understand the circumstantial evidence can be used to make the connection but here i don't think there was any circumstantial evidence to connect mr dering to the drugs he had passed there was an explanation for that you've read i mean if you look at the st instance before the kalpoe one and he was convicted i mean he was found with a gun and a small amount of marijuana even though that both of those marijuana and firearm your honor i believe is our strongest evidence and how does that show that mr kerry knew the marijuana was back there yeah he knew the gun was back there because he put it back there how how is that evidence that he knew the question do we know what drug trafficking activity was in his presence we know that the person and his money that's mine and it was in the trunk how do we know his large quantity of marijuana in the trunk there must be distribution going on yes your honor and the nd factor that would bring in addition to the quantity of marijuana i would be the fact that there was additional evidence  they were acting in concert in and how they chose to cooperate with law enforcement yes your honor they had the district court see this video the district court did not review the video then and you should video in the record the video is not a record place and set it out as an element in the indictment your honor and as a factual basis at least you would say that at a factual basis or in the indictment yes either you're saying that they have to prove that he was convicted of a felony and that he knows he was convicted of a felony yes around but not that he knows that the result of being convicted isn't the status of a prohibited in these cases now in order to prove the we have element is simply putting in evidence of incarceration beyond will stay that is it isn't valid at this point or perhaps this case plane plane air analysis that you represent the government because you represent united states here yes so you're saying let's take the elements of a plane air you know the mob so you can name in your sleep go down the ones i want to make sure the ones you can go to just the individual case does it we have to look beyond just this this case yes rushes or what what does the decision right do to the whole idea of areas up the instructor because you know the structural and prejudice interesting ok appear it does say where that date was given credit to the six hundred and ninety one dollars days of time served it's unclear to me the way it reads is that he was sitting in jail waiting for his case to be adjudicated which often happens in st assume he did is that enough i don't mean there the government is arguing that is an up and up i disagree that that is that is enough to show that he was convicted of felony and again it it's happen and he didn't do what he was supposed to but he still was not presume to have knowledge that was his status i think there are for that i mean it's hard for me to stand up here and give you every eventuality of what could or could not prove whether there was prove that element so he didn't know oh maybe i do have a defense to that i shouldn't leave guilty and that's why it affects a substantial right chief judge very special for me to continue with a new air analysis and i think that