these the court my name is maureen sweeney and represent the university of maryland immigration clinic and other curia i arguing on behalf of the petitioner today just as a roadmap for argument i will be arguing why the maryland  reference to in reliance on the model penal codes definition of deprive what it means to deprive somebody of property and a model penal code says it deprivation includes with holding property either with an inten permanently deprive the owner of the property or for so extended a period as to appropriate a major portion of the economic value property maryland's definition of deprived is similar but significantly broader and importantly broader maryland recognizes temporary takings where they result in the appropriation of a part of the value of the property not a substantial part but just a part no matter how small exactly and i don't know how much joy mr hughes got out of it but he was charged with theft and actually pled guilty to theft of a motor vehicle i understand maryland statute he was charged under the maryland  incorrectly claim that sixteen states in the country to have adopted the final definition of deprived it's more expanded when that is not true including every state in the circuit maryland virginia north carolina south carolina west virginia  speak about permanent intent to and even if it was correct that many states have adopted this which is not alone is not a reason a reasonable reason to change the standard the supreme court over seventy years in multiple cases it's a very clear line of what is and what is not depending on whether intent is temporary or permanent there is no question about where that line almost harber now we have a new standard where the party and give it back and then they say well if i give it back to you a couple years later that would be now crime involving moral turpitude under the new ball even though it doesn't have intent to deprive the problem we have is what if i give it back two this is not sensually that's right that's correct and that our human is underscored by the fact that maryland courts view the consolidating that statute in maryland as one single offense for example in the case of race versus state or excuse me the second alternative definition of deprive the appropriation of a part clearly falls within that substantial erosion for three reasons the first is that those well when you have an appropriation of a part that squarely falls within this definition because the board talks about damaged or its usefulness or value being vindicated when when a portion when a part of a value has been taken that is essentially a temporary taking that value is not coming back that owner is not getting its value back and that clearly falls within this idea of the property being damaged because the value is  e amount or the quality and again that clearly falls within the appropriation of a part when a part of a vet when the part of a property's value has gone it's temporary i excuse me it's permanent it's not coming back property has been damaged that owner is not going to be getting his property back in its original form so it clearly falls so does matter yes and for my third reason that the morally turpitude this nature of theft has never been defined in terms of of the strict value of the property whether something has been stolen that is for three dollars that is this that is the same morally trooper to his crime as a theft that's five hundred dollars have to necessarily be permanent can be under these circumstances of substantial erosion and substantial roshon occurs when a a part of a property value has been has been appropriated that appropriation as  dollars or five dollars or five hundred whether or not larceny is is morally turpitude this goes to this idea that it's it's it it's against the rules of morality that  resulted in the damage for procreation of a part of a value in pieces words strictly joyriding right where you've just taken the car and you've returned back and that is just temporary taking there's no damage there's intent to deprive requirement that seven exactly and that appropriation of a part of the property's value essentially as it is a permanent taking because that value for it and that portion yes it is a temporary taking because that value is not going to be returned this item is now hugo they according to that hughes case it what i recall of the evidence was just a child the charges that we didn't know what the final time diction was they did charge him under seven one or seven can bring out a let me have charges whether or not they stand up to conviction as is a different story but under seven one hundred four in the hughes case he was charged with theft if if the particular facts which we don't all and the particular alternative that we're talking about the appropriation of a part of the properties value that when that part has been appropriated that that it had there damage has occurred as i said that part that appropriation that have a value of the of that item can be theft are morally turpitude the stuff and the value of the larceny is irrelevant and always has been because what it what morally true between us l y goes to is the executions between members of society the morality involved and that that is independent of the value of that property so it's never been an terms of  services it is it is the intentional deprivation of the compensation that you owe the service provider when you steal for services you intentionally take those service is knowing that you do not plan on paying for those services and when you do that that is the intentional deprivation of the service provider's financial compensation and that that clearly falls within the definition of finally as i know my time is wrapping they do with right and the real word changes in this operation of the part of the value but as we talked about when you appropriate a part of a value that the temper of permanent taking that item has been damaged  and still the board was just doing a chevron and brand x requires which is the thing that they need to that they should reconsider the wisdom of their policy is not interpretations and as long as are adequately justified it and given a thorough reasoning which they did that that their their construction their interpretation is a permissible construction is a permissible interpretation and it thank you your honor the government appears to be trying to read the word substantial out of the cia's standard and keeps referring to the video getting a part of the value when in fact the to be a standard is a substantial part portion of the economic value has to be lost also the case that was issued that same day with d s raga dealt with a new york statute this is a matter of and in that case the statute required that the temporary taking be for so extended period under circumstances that a major portion of the economic value be lost so if you look in that context it is clear that the b s a is requiring something more than just any loss it has to be substantial it has to be a substantial portion or it has to be the major portion which i would argue sounds like more than half of the value maryland statute is clearly broader than that and while it is it does define theft which is if we were to lose