thirty three of our opening brief concerning reasonable cause to believe being an object of rather than subjective standard but i understand that if necessary that's an argument that i would make to an on line panel r however believe they're the additional arguments that we made in the opening brief are dispositive in particular the argument about the element of quote will be used to manufacture it cases which i think analyzed statutes that were indistinguishable in structure from this stash it in that they criminalized whoever knowingly or with reasonable cause to believe committed a certain transaction  reference to whether he was an out of state resident referred solely to the status of the buyer and did not we did not refer to what the seller had in his mind and if you compare the structure of our statute eight forty one  but it doesn't have to actually be true oh well let's look at the other side of it what if he was because if he was prosecuted soley under the knowledge of crime and the government was able to you know submit jury instructions only knew that he was convicted only under the knowledge crown at that point it would  plausible interpretation my argument is that there's an equally possible interpretation when you hold sections to a great forty one up next to ny funny to a five there are structure the court held only that the government need not prove that to create curse or chemical was already made into methamphetamine will be requires as dead a president tandja to violate the law in the future but not showing that it had already being the buyers president intends to manufacture the precursor into an illegal drug if it's not a sting operation if it's a real method of coming into by then you've got the operative to the intent of the transfer or and that it necessarily refers to something else meaning the status of the buyer i suppose it could also refer to government proof that  operation and one of those was not a sting operation and the government acknowledges that the jury instructions did not require unanimity as to which incidentally the jurors agreed upon but argues especially that it doesn't matter instruction and as the government pointed out that means reviewing it under the plane air standard but of course that's exactly what occurred in garcia rivera there was a dispute about the standard of review that should be applied there in the court concluded well we need not to side with the standard of might the government might even argue that they might have researched at the same time and i raised that because the government's essentially asked to our argument is well they were both on the same night that they were both so close in time and i think the answer to that  by name or in any other respect so where the instructions are potentially conflicting on that the elements instruction being the key instruction that they look after allowing the conviction and the unanimity instruction arguably  afternoon on march thirteenth and the jury's duly instructions they found all the talents of bank robbery and you have to find out the person who runs the bank on march thirteenth do they have to agree which defendant is charged as robbing the first national thing yet he's robs banks funds on march thirteenth from sa be sufficient now in this case the defendant didn't go to two separate places or different times i think exact same time from the exact same place from the into being a discrete event and it was charged concerning the sting operation if the court will it was still simultaneous conduct and it was the exact same conduct without the type of  otal conclusion is that his activities during the day unanimously for each picking a different many cooking different transactions that he had in fact knowingly distribut distributing for example of controlled substances distributing a certain statutory penalty amount on one point and a lesser penalty amount another point which one does the jury charged which is the distribution or with the state of mind or more appropriately substate of mind of knowing or having reasonable cause to believe of what would happen after that it would be manufactured into a controlled substance  know i guess from the government's perspective i can't imagine a more higher standard than reasonable doubt we do kind of step into the realm of  with our circuit as well as any other circuit that has addressed this statute is that there's not a lot of legislative history that says we wanted this language because but if you analyze the language in condition of the state of mind with knowledge or with reasonable cause to believe that this that it will be towards this illegal purpose in our case of making m related to the state of mind of the distributor or the possessor so i'll how do you show that you show that by the evidence that transpires around the sales in this case i see that my time is running