case there are three assignments in there and two relating to sentencing for a total of five the first position that we offered related to the it's almost incumbent upon all of us to do that in a case such as this the ninth circuit hasn't addressed the issue there is a split we have ways of getting around deciding cases it times what do you think is the closest analogue for us to look to so we can figure out what those words mean in the context of this statute well judge reed felt allocation was the benefit i would assume and i don't think it it really can the way that that was structured because and in this case lender county never received an allocation of money all they received was a total aggregate sum that other people could tap it was never lender county that would tap that money what would happen is a person would buy a bullet proof vest and they would get half of the money back for the purchase of the vest but that have these from the sheriff's department was of the twelve thousand seven hundred no it had to be for individual deputies sheriff's departments there may have been other people within the department but i don't think that that's the linchpin of the argument here i'm a trial attorney and i'm given an indictment and the indictment tells me that the element is to show that they have a limit that the government says they can show is that that the benefit was received in excess of ten thousand dollars and i went out there to investigate the case based upon the indictment and that was the major flaw that i saw in this case was that there were four or five different deputies that made any application at all and got any money so you only got a few thousand dollars that year in other words is the possibility that you if everyone in the sheriff's department had gotten your vast and spent twelve thousand dollars then we wouldn't have a question wh ok but here the only difference is they could have done that in other words the money it's like having money in your bank account they could have drawn down their whole bank account that year couldn't think no no they have to of potential allotment now it was it was way over a lot it anyway in battle mountain a town of five thousand people you're going to have a few deputies that covers the means well it means that you can hand up to so much money if you if a number of people go out and purchase the vests and the allotment itself of twelve thousand seven hundred dollars to each individual spending about or getting reimbursed the sum of about two hundred fifty to five hundred dollars you don't even have that many deputies in the entire department plans for the money you can't it's not as though it's your mining until you have until you submit the necessity i don't think it's a very good analogy because under this program you only have the ability to collect fifty percent on whatever you purchased but the statute itself six six b has pretty clear language first place it contains in and an amount but then it says receive proof that they bought the bus to get the fifty percent reimbursement yes and so if they had bought all these verses say hey look let's get that for the next hundred years now because they they've got twelve thousand dollars worth and they submitted about twenty four thousand dollars worth of that so they get the fifty percent and they submitted that climb would not have been paid well i look at it this way what's the benefit the benefit let me ask is does or anything in the record that indicate that it would not have been paid that county is to get officers protected that's the benefit the benefits in this case during the jurisdictional period alleged in the indictment came out to under oath ows and dollars with the total amount of receipts for all the officers for all the time during the period this thirteen hundred dollars so if we're going to look at the plain reading of the statute let me ask you the plain reading the statute and who's in kuwait then if it such as grant of benefits received under a grant for thirteen hundred dollars the benefit is to get protective clothing on the officers the benefit to think to the state or the county or whatever testimony sergeant court trial we had the documentation showing a message coming in and the money was available and they started drawing on it they had up to four years to expand this grant but the money was available to kind of jump around a bit i think with stick with this issue because this is the one that we're particularly interested in the question i have is is not that i grant could be of benefit but whether it was actually received by the sheriff's department means it when i was down to our interpretation of benefit as defined by statute in the word and their argument is well we didn't get it actually we had the potential to get it but we actually didn't leave that money in that particular year why isn't why doesn't that make common sense of the word because of the language that is in the statute in another context i would look at it in the form of a person who's applied to university in the city will be given or should be given financial aid when they check in they can make plans they can rent apartments they can run a moving truck because they initial is there if you need to show not only the benefit being out there but that's that city in order to draw on it does that impact whether or not it's actually received cases there's been an increase push to federalize what are normally state crimes and i suppose he could have been indicted under state crime so there should be at least  are properly utilized as long as there are some in this particular case was kind of partial unique under the laws of nevada apparently when the sheriff who is a suspect tells the state investigators to stay out and the da is kind of involved in a witness there's not really nothing anyone can do other than pick up a federal investigation factually so that's somewhat how we got into it narrow reading of the term benefit received actually have to have cash in hand because in a general context of receiving a benefit we go down and we enter into purchase contracts on houses and we make all sorts of commitments and serious matters of our life based upon a promise that somebody is going to fund it you know on the road that it's there and we can draw against it we've got a benefit and that's what we act on in this particular case had to grant not come through had it's still been conditioned to the point where all the if the money is received or available that might be a colorblind human are believe it's a stretch to say that the money comes out of a general while you're waiting for a certain build to go through congress for what not but mr particular case there was a grand procedure followed and they asked for twenty five thousand dollars i believe which was the estimate to properly equip  to go back to your scholarship prospect i gave you the wrong answer i know if you can only get nine thousand a year obviously you you've got a benefit but it's limited at nine thousand differs from this case where you could get the whole thing in one year ok year so it next year is somewhere less than ten thousand to be had would that mean there would be no jurisdiction but the statute absolutely correct your honor the benefit would have been received in the first year if they hundred dollar bets they pay two hundred dollars and then they make the claim through the sheriff's department is this federal agency right i believe was the officer just as it is the opposite of justice whatever make the check payable to the sheriff's preparation for trial and it says it has time requirements change here that specify receiving and the one year period beginning july first two thousand and one benefits or nexis of ten thousand dollars under the bulletproof vest partnership grant program now i take my marching orders from this indictment and i went out to check that out and found out that they had not received that money now under the government's argument there never had to be a nice team goal expenditure just the allocation not of dying and in this case i went and it took a little bit of investigation to find out that there were five allocations and within the period that they're talking about it was under a thousand dollars so this was the sort of it's almost worse having this indictment just way in conjunction with the statute a which basically tells the trial attorney and put your trial attorney on noticed it's just what you have to do this is what we are alleging this is what we're going to show and you have to show us that we're wrong and so it's almost deceptive  send an attorney and investigator out under these marching orders to battle mountain to go through the records and find out that it isn't proved and i come back i think we've now got a pretty stark rel administrative law judge or the immigration judge is clearly wrong and her credibility determination as to whether your client is a farmer and if he's and if it's questionable as to whether he's a farmer it's questionable as to whether he was beat up ever was a farmer is there a record admittedly there are not your own however we believe that the idea is and first credibility fine as to whether or not he was a farmer as opposed to some other had cleared land for two years parks when gaging in farming on his own for a period of eight years before he attempted to renew his land lease and ran it said difficulties with the natives and the  and i believe petitioner simply testified without contradiction or without contrary evidence perhaps he happened to drive a van while he was helping his father some years previous to farming on