definition of a drug trafficking and under guideline to a one point two i think the main issue with what the district or court held is that the specific intent to distribute is required for an office to qualify as a drug this particular statute a lesser intent for example this court and other courts have held the transportation might not meet the definition of a drug trafficking  transporting is part of the so high a statute so therefore if someone is transporting drugs say it in an ambulance or in an eighteen wheeler that's used for commercial purposes they are certainly going to have some knowledge that these drugs will likely be distributed so someone somewhere has to have the intent to distribute these drugs however the transporter himself doesn't have to have any kind of specific intent but can be convicted under a lesser state of mind i mean the transporters purpose could be just to make money he doesn't have to have the specific intent to distribute these specific drugs also the court has established that the categorical approach he knows or has caused to believe that it would be intended for sale or resale himself or by a third party and i think it's the that the part where it's the third party intensive for resale puts the specific intent on the third party rather on the person who's actually transporting because the snarly make that i'm sorry you make that argument as a matter of fact or interpretation of the hard correct and in the brief i supported it with the guy live jury instructions in ohio make a distinction between knowledge and intent as required by the specific statute for example the government argued that that u s gypsum case shows that are all different kinds of levels which meet the definition of intent but the reason that case doesn't apply is because they were trying to figure out in an antitrust law which was full of intent upon it they also  the government also cited to the u s versus bailey case which recognize that in certain cases such as homicide or attempt or conspiracy that heighten culpability is required and because this court uses the categorical approach and a such they look at how the state defines its crime in this case ohio has specifically through its jury instructions and the way it wrote the statute made it stinks in between the knowledge that's required that there's this general knowledge that the one is there is the actual distribution or some other activity that would meet the definition of distribution and when when you're talking about the with the intent it's usually the possession with intent and then that's where you have to have the specific intent and there was a case that i found it i've addressed it in the opening brief and then in the reply brief i discussed the specific intent requirement because the government has argued that this court can infer intent so i disagree with but there's a tenth circuit two thousand and sixteen case domingo's rodriguez feet seventeen of three d eleven ninety that outlines it was a comparison of twenty one u s c eight forty one and whether it met the definition of drug trafficking offense believe it or not they're not a lot of cases out the ohio drug statute may actually cover that but it doesn't only cover that and because it's not divisible at least this version of it is not to bizzle it also includes the transportation might be mere possession of a controlled substance in which there is an intent to manufacture import export or distribute and the specific intent clearly applies to the second prong of that with the possession with intent to manufacture import export or distribute i think the statute can cover both prongs of this but where it doesn't meet the definition of a drug t mens rea because the argument more deals with in my mind whether the intent is there are not men there's also the part where there's the transporting which america plan  score to suggest that the transporting would not be a drug trafficking so there's that part of it but largely the argument relates to the specific intent that's require distributed like i said it could be that the person is trying to make some money they know the drugs are not there they have some problems all having the only transportation in my mind but someone who just purchased the drugs for his or right and i i'm just relying on the american brand case in the circuit and there's the circuit case that i cited in the brief where they also held the transporting does not meet the definition of drug traffic maybe because the specific intent is lacking and it would fall into that second on the possession with intent to distribute but i but that's that's why add that as one of the arguments that is in the br i and i as i mentioned the government does argue for inferring into it and that is exactly what the cases that the district court relied on and that the government relies on did they inferred intent that was in the  case of walker but again this court was a district court case ponts rodriguez rejected that you can infer intent and they relied on the american brand case for that proposition but i don't think that the specific intent can be in so in other words under this ohio statute if someone was transporting drugs or packaging drugs and they knew that there were so many drugs that someone was probably going to distribute them and not use them for personal use the only person that has to have the specific intent it's not the defendant actually doing the distributing would be the third party but that is distribution but that is what the that  drugs to someone you know is going to give them away or sell them is the distribution of the drugs you can you can be charged under the statute with transporting the drug blah blah but that's it's a distribution of drugs well just that well that is what that's what the qur'an case but i'm sorry that's what the qur'an case held and that's what i believe there's another case out there that holds just the actual giving of the drugs is with just everybody shows with the knowledge that's just with the not the still not with the with the specific intent but how about package packaging the drugs the person may sit in some room package up knowledge to know that the drug is intended to be sold it's distribution the appellant suggested that those circuits ignored the intent issue but that that is i submit not the case in the carom case they start out by saying distribution is the intent to distribute a grudge they recognize that then they go on to find in this case under this statute that that is distribution and that's when they say they don't need to get into because in all of these cases including our case the defendant is making the same argument as as far as the intent but having found that this is its actual distribution they they have decided that it been found his curry even went so far as to contact the higher probation office and learned that in every case where mr hire statute has been violated the guidelines enhanced meant for drug distribution or controlled substance offense has been applied and it's been applied that way in the sixth circuit has found that it's all you need to do is look at the statute and under the categorical approach which your honour's are much more familiar with me that's what you do you look to the statute to determine that and all of the circuits  perry did that and determine that this is a controlled substance that you i think part of what is supposed to be done is trying to make sure that you're not getting into a case where someone may be charged with a possession type case which is where there's transportation cases come in that you're already talking about those are like the california cases so you intent to do those things in the right case that the conduct in the statute amounted to possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute them and of course george curry looked at all of those and also found th cases don't include the any knowledge requirements or someone driving in the california case someone driving into california with a bag of marijuana a small bag of marijuana in their pocket could be charged with transportation so that's a problem with that that statute as opposed to the statute rehab here which i think reading the statute makes you can clearly see that it's designed to address controlled substance offenses drug trafficking thank you i would just reiterate that if the court is considering whether or not it's explicit that specific intent is required by this ohio statute or that it must be inferred that  indicated this court doesn't infer intent and it is a heightened state of and a specific intent and i think that's why it's important that it be addressed because these cases  and the walker case is that they decided to infer intent qur'an specifically said it wouldn't address the intent issue and i think specific intent is a heightened state the ohio jury instructions which are  codified they have their own citation they have thought it important enough to separate the difference between knowledge in this particular statute and intent and i do believe that a person can