the port of entry while the statute says not designated place and then the regulation says define certain points or ports of entry that sort of i think that sort of the crux of the cases where there was sufficient evidence to convict them turns on the meaning of this regulation in one fact immigration officials have designated under my reading of the regulation i think just what the regulation says is that the regulation generally speaking designates geographic areas for entry so for talking about the specific ports of entry so at the government tries to read the parent article when it doesn't it's particular ports as only places where the doesn't the most important within this certain geographic region but click suppose contrary to that so coalesced but they're you know like i said they're ten miles apart they're not part of the same thing and there's other examples of that so i believe richmond virginia has multiple ports of entry i don't unfortunate the name for them but on their website there's multiple por perhaps all those poor facilities are actually outside the jury graphic area of san francisco so for instance they designate oakland california as one of the as a place for entry and so i think if they hadn't specifically listen open california if you just  california you wouldn't think that oakland of course is part of san francisco so i think most of the parents articles are actually poor facilities they're outside the geographic area of the city and that's consistent with nearly all of the regulation and so i think at the end guess i don't i just haven't looked it up but i don't know if it's a city or it's a neighborhood but it's certainly like a definable area and let's go to mesa i mean it's a it's an area it's sort of a geographical description but is it a political subdivision it's an it's an essentially it's a giant subdivision of san diego but there are there are legal boundaries to time a so there's legal boundaries to all these different places and the government certainly could prove that if that's the route they want to go to trial the heading for this regulation is field offices that suggest to me that we're easily said oh time a support facility it would have been difficult to do that but they chose not to and i think there is like a practical reason why they didn't want to do that which is which is that many of these port facilities are not literally at the border  sometimes hundreds of feet sometimes miles to get to the actual port facility so if the government just doesn't have the actual physical port facilities every single legal permanent resident every single visa holder who crossed into the united states to get these port facilities but actually  government's view be violating thirteen twenty five a one because they were crossing united states at a non designated place because they're not crossing into the united states at a port facility under my reading because what they're i think they're trying to do is designate general geographic areas people who cross in the united states at these geographic areas have not committed thirteen twenty five a want and so on with respect to this case under the theory your two guys who are in that area and that should therefore keep them from being liable under that statute or i would the government hasn't proven the opposite i guess is that the government is didn't prove where exactly they answer other than that we know from the record that they didn't enter  i please the court daniels up on behalf of united states your honor before even getting to the sort of regulatory argument the defendants in this case for partridge with attempted entry into the united states not only elements for that crime were that they had the specific intent to enter at a place other than as designated by immigration officials and that they took a substantial step towards achieving that goal in this case there's regardless of how the fence was designated under the regulations the evidence was overwhelming that these specific defendants when they walked up to that fence and climbed over at night three miles east of the port of entry facility that they had the specific intent to enter at a place that wasn't the designated port of entry but that's his argument he's saying well that that's a silly argument but that's his argument well in fact they were intending to enter into otay mesa they may not have known it by name according to opposing counsel is the designated facility so their intent was to exit to enter the  designated facility at the designated place and i think the difference with the attempt the extra wrinkle that at that is that nothing about this fence area gave any appearance that it was a por yes but the question is whether the defendant and the defendants in their heads had the specific intent to cross at a place that was not a designated port of entry so the evidence there was nothing about that fence that advertised anyway that it was a po crazy in criminal law can you attempt to do something that's impossible to do when you're saying they didn't even attempt to enter a non port of entry when in fact they're doing it under his theory i mean his theory is where they were coming in and was designated as otay mesa and you're saying well they're attempting to do something what they're allowed to do when they're tempted to do precisely what he says they're allowed to do so well i don't get it can you live off of the attempt issue because that's getting a little too and a physical for me as well and address whether in fact the regulation is best read as meeting areas to graphical areas as opposed to specific facilities yes ron i think both parties here are making sort of a plain reading argument we're just focusing on two different words in that the statute defense is saying that we have to look at the time masons and the plain meaning of that word is what i mean to the city and we're saying the word port of entry has to have a plain meaning which means a place where people come into the united states so one of those two plain meetings has to give i can place you in a specific building or facility yes we're where physical entry into the united states is passed california yes so you're saying that we should read the regulation with the understanding that each of those listed geographical names is meant to refer to a specific facility is that your position yes your honor and i think that to read it otherwise and designating the entire city or whatever that whatever the geographic region and sometimes it's a neighborhood like a time a calexico i think is a specific city to read it that way would defeat the purpose of the  regulation which rich and the first sentence says it's designating ports of entry for entry by aliens and that by vessel or other land transportations to interpret that in a way that encompasses large swaths of border wall that were built specifically to prevent entry by vessel or other transportation is not logical and i would defeat the purpose of the regulation itself to interpret it that way so again this court just to briefly go back on the attempt to take answer your question out of this court has held that even a defendant who crossed who doesn't legally cross the border and the official restraint on the land and in fact in this case mr all donna never actually legally entered the united states he was on video camera the entire time even a defendant that doesn't cross the border can still be guilty of attempting to enter the united states as long as he has this specific intent to do it so to here even if that this is legally  a designated port of entry three miles east next to the fence as long as this defendant had a specific intent to cross at a place that wasn't a designated port of entry that's enough under this court so you're looking for a ruling from a saying  of mixed up a little bit and i break into my own thinking i'm burglarizing somebody else's would you call that attempted burglary when in fact it's my own home and it can't possibly be a burglary because it's my own home and that's what your argument is that's not i mean that's comparable to what the case law is and the official restraint doctrine that you can violate the you can have the intent to commit a crime that you don't even actually do because you don't even cross the border so i think that's under this court's case law and this context of border crossing that those meant to be a compliment in this argument but well it's meant to be this is not sarcastic just meant to be actually a compliment even if you lose oh well thank you your honor i thought maybe just because i think your gut reaction is it seems like you said maybe a bit silly i think the problem is we all agree here