good morning your honor the court my name is anna williams and i'm arguing on behalf of mr sunny's thing mr singh was born in india and arrived in the united states at age fourteen he was sentenced recently nineteen months in prison for being an illegal alien and possession of firearms to move to dismiss the indictment arguing that his status under the deferred action for childhood arrivals program allowed the district court subsequently denied his motion to dismiss and so he raises two issues on appeal he contends that because he had been conferred back a status and was awaiting its renewal he was neither be waived by him pleading guilty if either of them i would argue that they're not waive mr saying did after his guilty plea he renewed his motion to reconsider the dismissal of the indictment the government did not respond to argue that th and while he is focused on how it's applied to him there is a facial challenge to look at to consider whether you know just the statute within itself is they as to its definition of illegally  and on the latter point are you are you relying on the class case from the supreme court last year ok on the council doesn't class suggest that these constitutional issues survive a guilty plea unless they contradict either the face of the indictment or the plea and i'm wrestling with your client admitted to live in the plea agreement and needed to the fact that he was in the country legally that he shouldn't own firearms i'm wondering i mean it seems to me that class says well that doesn't apply we don't class doesn't apply in that case where the defendant has admitted kind of facts and undermined the constitution or the claim or general to make a good point your honor but i would argue that class does point out if the government's not even allowed to bring the indictment that his argument would be waived that goes to the power of the court that the argument here that i mean how does the government not have the power to bring the indictment here in there to kill it for me yes i would i would point out that if if the constitutional system or the statute is unconstitutionally vague in that that doesn't survive you know his ability to be unlawfully present in the united states i would argue that he could still make this argument on appeal a facial challenge to the statute but the st one just to follow up on that i think i might agree with you on the nd one that they can ask because there was a vagueness challenge actually in class that they allowed to go forward it was not the primary argument was  given where i'm having trouble is on the st one because your client admitted as judge copas points out that he was illegally in the united states he was not supposed to own a gun and they're allowing you to argue this would directly contradict the admissions that your client made and it would not affect the power of the court to bring her the power of the court to hear the prosecution of the prosecution to bring the client and i agree that the weaker of the two arguments that he brings up and so i would like to focus on the vagueness of the statute with my remaining time if i may and of course the court you know that's a decision has to make on this case but in the event that it feels that it can hear the case then i'd like to present the nd argument so the nd half of his argument is the void for vagueness part and he argues under the rule of lenity because the statute does not provide f noticed as to shoes possession of firearms would be criminal in nature as it does not define illegally or unlawfully in the united states and there is some dispute and different courts onto whether this goes to present or able to have that this claim be heard despite the guilty plea one of the issues i'm struggling with is the fact that he didn't actually have back a status renewal at the time he was the offense occurred and so i'm status so they didn't ever like deny or reach you know give extra permission on that issue i'm so that of course is another issue that corey's going to have to decide on and mr staines case but you will agree the forefront of cases that are important issues i do want to point out very quickly there was a recent district court case out of oregon i found that has some real persuasive analysis of this issue came out in april immigration status and presence in the united states when they're looking at nine hundred and twenty two g five a recognizes the work in more naturally relates to the physical presence so that would go towards somebody with that dhaka status that you know they've been allowed to the president's not unlawful them for them to be could not be prosecuted i'm going to reserve my little bit of time for about all your honest very well i think you congress more than a half a century ago criminalizing aliens who are unlawfully in possession of firearms daca was a mandate and executive branch decision to  defer the deportation of certain individuals who fulfilled certain obligations those two are not in conflict with each other but docket does not trump nine hundred and twenty two dollars g five a before we even get there i think there's a great argument that appellate review of this case is barred now we're here so we all obviously might feel differently but in unconditional guilty plea was entered by mr saying this is factually unopposed by the  appellant rule eleven a two requires preservation of the right to appeal an issue and that just wasn't done here following his hearing loss on a motion to dismiss what do you do about class two claims in class one the double jeopardy claim i think and then you have a said the guilty plea didn't didn't bar the void for vagueness or the double jeopardy for that matter yes distress i understand that but it i don't believe class over rules the i'm going to mispronounce of the the brooch  a decision in class they say that the district court had no power to enter the conviction to a defendant and he may appeal and as applied challenge to a statute but saying is not challenging the government's power to criminalize this conduct as i read their brief they're saying that because of his status which is extraneous to the indictment nine hundred and twenty two g five  scipio's her specifically told in their paperwork this does not convert confer status on you it is again we're choosing not to deport you for certain reasons but you are not given the rights that other people have you're given social security you're given we're not going to let you stay in this country and starve to death but we're also and we're not going to let you vote and we're not going to let you possess firearms and some of the case law says or is reason behind that that we don't want to let certain people possess firearms and sings case there's a reason he's shooting people and dealing drugs and again wrong defendant to even bring up this issue and it is a very high bar to reverse the district court nearly impossible when the indictment as it did in our case tracks the statutory language so i just we included all of the elements of nine hundred and twenty two g five a and again he is challenging it as it applies to his docket status not to the statute overall because of his actual knowledge or because of of the statements made in the docket paperwork i believe he has actual knowledge that he is unlawfully he entered and remained in this country and he knows that he is not allowed to possess firearms he came into this country illegally and he's been in this country illegally since that time i think that's  or going to pinion the negative ask was because he actually illegally entered the country was a doctor recipient an act doctor sippin and applied to the government to visit his family in mexico and then was paroled back into the united states again i don't think that been a gas mask was a great decision but i can see where that allowing somebody back into the united states can create something somebody is mine that ok maybe i'm allowed to be here none of that is present  case from the time he came in at fourteen to the time he was arrested he was unlawfully in this country and nothing change there daka presupposes the fact that you're unlawfully in this country otherwise what's the point of dhaka and i don't think that that was really mentioned in any of the arguments but if somebody is is here there's no reason to even have docket again i don't think we get there because seeing good and perfect his doctor paperwork so for those reasons i'm not sure we even get to the merits of this case because i'm not sure that the appeal was preserved i can see where that creates a twenty to fifty five issue that will have to deal with down the road but if you all disagree with that i do not think that this case gets remanded for the reasons i've said thank you just want to go to mr dean's argument and our argument having to do with the vagueness of this dodge it so he himself was getting confused as the oregon case is pointing out on whether it's and i talking about presidents or status i mean we recognize that docket doesn't come for immigration status on an individual but it did provide lawful presence to be in the country while things were pending section on the citizenship and immigration website pointed out to people like mr singh that would be looking at this but you're considered lawfully present in the united states during that time at a minimum they're kind of being communicated that they have