me please the court monday morning mullins and i am appearing on behalf of william burroughs the police executed a search warrant on william burroughs residence and seize child pornography from a computer conduct is prohibited specifically what conduct distinguishes the sassing from receiving child pornography and it allows arbitrary enforcement by the government and pornography requires that the government prove that the defendant knew that the material he received here she received was depicted a minor in sexual identity if she sexually explicit conduct that's hol finding has also been undermined by other circuits united states versus davenport the ninth circuit found that the harms identified by congress are really the same for both receive them possession there was a fairly thorough discussion and davenport about the legislative history behind the two on different provisions and a similar finding was made by the third circuit and the united states versus miller directly implicate the market for child pornography so we believe that watson should be overruled that it's inconsistent with this court's holding an taking the case on it on face value without considering lots and we believe that the distinction between receiving and possessing is not sufficiently defined down the  child pornography statute along with back the respect for this court's precedent and we believe both of those principles require permits of the district court the fact is that under either the notice decide to retain it once he or she realizes what it is in there then guilty of possession and example would be that a person could use a search term for example barely legal important is that the government is not able to prove and every case where someone has received child pornography that they knowingly received it for example and this is anecdotal we have had cases where the victimized in another state that necessarily shows that it traveled interstate commerce because the victim the pornography was and the state of illinois so we are not able in every case to show that everyone th and what what the defense is almost seems to be making is there a rational basis for distinguishing between the two on the part of congress and waspinator zakk question that the people that knowingly receive are engaging in the trafficking of child pornography which that we see in distribution statute is targeted to seek to reduce the market for child  this stack which clearly lays out the elements of you have to receive the material knowingly receive it at the moment you have to know it's child pornography and the interstate commerce element are very clear both from a notice perspective and then from an arbitrary unfortunate perspective that it delineates how a person can be guilty of that affects the fact that the government might choose and this case did to statute with higher penalties and without more does not violate either the due process process nor the equal protection clause the statute is constitutional and w with my my colleague that the that the receipt is a five to twenty year sentence but in this particular case because that's zero to twenty because he had children under the age of twelve so it made a difference with the mandatory halliday two thousand and twelve case the court stated that quote the reasoning of these cases is now in question both because of our more recent views of the science or requirement in possession possessing cases and because of our sister circuit possession and receipt in a child pornography contest and that was a double jeopardy challenge it wasn't of wait for vagueness challenge but the principles on which it relies are relevant to the void for vagueness challenge because is no longer valid we believe that the entire rationale for distinguishing the two stashed is no longer valid and really what's at issue here i believe if these statutes were carried the same penalties  wouldn't rise to the level of what we are asking for other centrally strict scrutiny analysis by the court and the statute didn't impose different penalties we don't necessarily believe it would rise issue but because of the distinct pretty drastic differences between the statutes we believe that it is subject to strict strict scrutiny and time and we're asking the court to order that