the second issue of guilt it's really just applying some basic principles of statutory construction to a statute you have a statute with two closets first clause grant citizenship to a child of a naturalized parents if the child is quote residing in the united states pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence and the second law of grant citizenship if the child is quote residing permanently in the united states the question is whether you're going to read the word lawful into the second clock which is where the government is asking you to do and what the district court there's at least three or four principles statutory construction that say you don't do that first the rule that you start by looking at the plain language of the statute in its ordinary meaning reside mean to live and permanently means indefinitely without any tension dictionary definition of my papers and you have an intent to sustain an attempt to be here permanently in your per million as far as you are correct are concerned and definitely no reason to leave without being here lock laying out you're going to get kicked out if you get caught perhaps  most significant in this case is the principle that you specially don't read words into a statute where the word is affirmatively used in one place and not in another because that's how it is you that congress knew how to put the word in and didn't put the word in when it wanted to and they didn't need it once you know and here we know that congress knew how to put in the word lawful when it wanted to because they did that and the other cl we're going to take the group of people who have a legal right to be here people who have a green card people have a lawful admission to permanent residence and they're going to get this right to citizenship and this person naturalized so we're going to focus group with a legal right at the time their current naturalized had a plan to leave and was going to be leaving in a month to go back to mexico or else salvador wherever the no but i think in the far more you know far more common case that would be true because there would be that reside frankly and by the way this is as i understand before there was any possibility of going unpublished opinion so the ninth circuit was stuck with doing it one way or the other but but more important than that you're out of the statute was a completely different sask or at least w contrast in the other closet the very same stuff paragraph of the same subsection of the statute so snyder was looking at a different statute snyder didn't have to consider that the principle of statutory construct construction that i think is one of the most powerful arguments for the defense decision here so i think certainly then a one sentence of herman's by this morning makes hundred forty seven doesn't control this later making fifty two statu hundred thirty three but i don't think they tested as broad as it was before two thousand and thirty have to pick at the language of four hundred thirty one of fourteen thirty two to really work through that but of course that's not the issue here because we're talking about what  you're running out of time a little bit i do want to know just briefly that i think there are dissenting error here is also very important if you don't reverse on the substantive issues i think there's an area that leads to respect first i don't i would to minutes not even clear the district court apply to guidelines correctly in terms of the cultural simulation departures grounds he did say it was exercising discretion but it also talks like community ties which here basically meant knowing no one in mexico and knowing no life there in american land because he came here when he was one and never lived in mexico wasn't enough that was certainly least a tenor of what the district court was saying and you should remember that the test to remain under the guidelines until guidelines just whether there was some doubt and those words come directly out in my opinion of this court about the district court understanding at forty second you have looked for a character your honor obviously and i would submit it is plain error in terms the district court's thinking about how the guideline sounded and how that affected it how to control what did it i don't want to read the following from an excerpt page ninety one believe me mr diaz i can understand the dilemma that mr d is in and since you've lived here all of life and he doesn't have any family i guess nitish but but if you note in order for me to grant the downward departure i do have to make a finding a factual finding that mr diaz growth chases outside of the heartland of the typical cases that i see come in i think it's crystal clear that we have playing here error here in terms of not applying booker given the district court clearly saying that she felt bound to do this outside the heartland type so let me ask you  whole you can determine that congress has very special meanings many uses terms like reside permanently and in earlier versions of the statute well in fact congress has demonstrated optional voluntary partial rather than deportation if the alien can demonstrate that he has been physically present in the us for a continuous period of not less and in a certain period of the years in addition  someone entered with a visa that person would be in a category that was included in the government's definition of the site permanently but would not be included in the first class which is pursuant to a lawful admission for a permanent residen may before reaching the age of majority enter the united states and there after begin to reside permanently as an l p r and that person also with become a citizen under the derivative citizenship statute or in the government or also to cover a class of people who are not l p r and therefore under that definition pursuant to a lawful admission so those people who are in the united states lawfully albeit not as an l p r would be able to satisfy the statu honor there is an alternative basis on which the district court could have formed i'm sorry in which this court could have from the district court decision and that's the argument that was put forth in the government's answering brief that the defendant never applied for citizenship i'm going to try to make for quick points first of all i don't think it's correct to say it was not disputed that he never made an application for citizenship it certainly might have been disputed if the issue ever been raised in the district court and it wasn't and that's why i don't think you  to my reply brief where i think i go into some depth into the point that citizenship may be recognized by an as ins but it's not determined by ins through citizenship exists when the n y fact exists it doesn't the statute which is there namely after having in reverse entered legally that language is not in the cards and secondly this court has rejected that exact distinction in a case where i believe you actually have on the panel just war law united states b