the idea is to do that even if evidence might seem like it's not the most reliable or that there's arguments as to later credibility that really the jury  different places they went and you know where the parties were in a certain hotel room they had ridden in a different vehicle so they thought that the vehicle they were writing in was being stolen they knew something terrible was happening but they didn't know worried about his safety and his fiance safety and he didn't know what was happening and he kept saying what's up what's happening what's going on in an angry tone of voice so it's a huge thing and that i'm switching gears now but just pointed that way but it certainly has types of content as well i e i don't know what's going on well well that's an inference i think from the statement and certainly  intertwined with their conduct that you really can't separate one from the other and certainly she could have said yes she seemed upset and he was angry that it's so much more forceful and accurate as to what she was trying to set forth was meant well most of them got it and it was harmless error i think that's exactly what the district court i would point out that they just took court did not appear surprised or feeling like this that the where where there was a moment where everything changed what what the jury knew and what they had heard was that mr delaney and the cole thought that their car that they had been writing on was had been stolen and that was a bad thing that was happening but what occurred after that and after that the judge should rule that the defense could not continue to present that kind of testimony what happened was  trying they were taken to a remote area by the border and the fact that they were transported there came out that then they thought that the escalade was there are so it wasn't being stolen and they were directed to get back into the government  testified she handed deline back his driver's license and other paperwork and told him that he was free to go prior to seeking consent to search my question is then in prejudice question more than we would get into the hearsay question because understand that in the night i believe that the statements that the defendant was attempting to admit were were your say statements they were offered for the truth of the matter the first pro closure defendant was that trial and that's on after the record at three twenty nine and there the defendant claims that the defendant's witness is going to talk about discussions quote between the defendant the witness quote what they were worrying about and quote do you have any circuit authority that supports the conclusion that these questions like what's going on what happened what do you want to drive our surgeons don't have any again at your three twenty nine he said these things are going to explain why what was going on and who was are i'm sorry what they were doing why the region certain behaviors the defendant himself the saying these are statements that are going to trying to prove what was what he was thinking or i'm sorry that what he was feeling or his emotions he's trying to actually say this is why i was feeling these motions and that's exactly what the rule says it is not allowed that those are hearsay statements and again even in his second set if the court were to believe that the district court should have known that this is where the statements that were going to be made the second set of statements that were offered after the trial after the verdict in the motion for a new trial and this is those statements again are trying to make a statement of fact trying to explain why he was feeling a certain way for example that's going on and things like why why why you know what's going on here length compliant may include an implication that he didn't know what was going on here but that's about it whether they were in the united states confusion but the rest of it and as what you know before even a question can be an assertion it's trying to infer that he doesn't know what's going on he doesn't understand what's happening as opposed to that he's just confused i want to ask you a question i'm going to go without quite deciding yet that you're wrong that it wasn't hearsay and wasn't in their newest to show the truth of what was going on and was introduced either for state of mind or for some other valid reason this is human if that is so information admitted because of most of his story did get before the jury on the teen and again on three thirty five to three forty seven that witness was able to tell the whole story about what happened that they were kidnapped that they didn't know what was going on that they caught up the car was being stolen that they were the car was taken away from them then they were brought back to the car that was done for washing down the car that they were forced to be in the car they were forced to then drive with this person across the international border on a different road and then at the end right before they get onto the paved road that the witness was able to say that the defendant was forced to drive the real seventy three eighteen there were many many times that the witness testified the defendant said this one of the passengers said this and over and over she was able to elicit the defendant's hearsay statements and additionally yonder the giuliani did not have the keys to the container and they had to break into the container leon i don't even believe the court needs to reach the issue of consent because this is the does the court found when the agent smelled the marijuana on her own that provided an independent basis for probable cause to search the vehicle and then once she had probable cause to search the vehicle then she was able to to look into that character in find that and so even if we were to assume the government is an extension of the traffic stop she asked him to step out of the vehicle she ran the dog around the vehicle as well marijuana exactly that the dog alerted to the marijuana and then she walked over to where the dog alerted she smelled marijuana and at that point she let him know that they were under a for this event thank you and if i could just briefly one quick them on e r two sixteen is where the defendant i'm sorry on witness testified that she returned both the driver's license and the about the same difference between this case and the cases that the government cited fun tonight and color and i think our that in most cases the comments they were really comments and they were after the fact they were and they were testimony was stopped if it had been some other portion of testimony maybe at the beginning or the middle it might not have mattered but this was the critical time in this was the case thank you very much thank you and sometimes useful argument in the case of united states ver