middle district of pennsylvania and i represent the opponent jeffrey boyd i think reserved three minutes of my time for a while no problem but argue the principle issue in this particular appeal concerns an instructional error based on a recent took place you actively contested mr boyce knowledge of his status to trial right yes we contested whether you had an opportunity to participate that march th in fact it looks to me like it was pretty hotly contested it all we know is that some sort of hearing as hell and that the court continued and then looking at the final want to contest where the judge issues a warning in the court the individual advising them that they are now subject doesn't answer the question that the court ray had addressed which is whether he acknowledges and there are circumstances surrounding the language network it's conflicting messages that would have impacted on or at least affect it whether he had standard that the burdens on them and and they think they have so much evidence that is ready where the strong that they have they have made their case we don't and they made the case because yellow reasonable doubt and i say that because a review of the evidence in the law supports only one conclusion and that is that the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that mr boyd was aware of his status as being subject to the court order because in order to find mr boies guilty beyond a reasonable doubt the jury necessarily had to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that mr boies knew its status such that it were heap instruction would not have led to a different conclusion and i involves essential involves knowledge that a defendant knows that is because the government has to prove notice beyond a reasonable doubt we have to prove that a hearing was held beyond a reasonable doubt and we have to prove that the defendant had an opportunity to be heard beyond reasonable doubt so knowledge of his status is an essential element in this case and the government prove that beyond a reasonable doubt the actual knowledge element in this case is judge hey i was in your court room on march th two thousand and eighteen and on that date you expanded the order of protection for six months and by the way you ordered us to come back on september th two thousand and eighteen we also ordered me to have a mental health evaluation all of that supports his knowledge that he had the order and he's constrained by the specifics in that order i would also say that stand that the jury was instructed you must find beyond a reasonable doubt notice was provided a hearing was held the defendant and opportunity opportunity to be heard and then on top of that is the descendants letter for five months after   government would not have introduced any more evidence of his knowledge even if the jury was instructed to have to prove government have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant knew what the status of the we proved that k from the oklahoma pulls the county court to testify as to the authenticity of those records and the jury was instructed you must find knowledge essentially without even defendant was even brought to the attention of law enforcement because this is a defendant who appeared on doorstep a woman by the mccaffrey helps catherine keltner did not go to the police because mr boyd showed up at her doorstep in fact he went to lunch with him the next day she did not go to the police because the boy had a gun because she didn't know the boy had a gun she went to the police because he made threats against the president but how is that my point is how is that relevant as to whether he had knowledge of protective orders that is for knowingly carrying a firearm it seems the only purpose is to somehow making that appear dangerous in the eyes of the jury i would doesn't it does it does because united states forces green this court said that evidence such as this can be brought in to provide the the history of the case the background the context these these witnesses did what they did for a reason any jury was not required to be left to think why i was one of the secret service involved why was why did this woman go to the police it was only relevant for that purpose it was not exploited to the extent that it was testified to it was testified to in passing it was subtle it was only presented to the jury in the context of the why the what you said did what they the reasonable doubt let me switch gears to the nd amendment issue the statute that you charge over inclusive because it covers protective orders against some persons who are not found to pose a danger to their partners i mean what it what it was just simply harassment too many phone calls it bothering me i can't take it anymore i want to restraining order but used to happen all the time back in my home town people would try to get restraining order not so much often so sometimes physical i just don't want the guy ran out there isn't a statute over inclusive it is not over inclusive for these reasons your honor it only the civic language to be included in that court order which was the case here not that the law does not require a definitive finding that this person presents a threat of abuse order not to to attempt to engage in threatening behavior we don't know we don't know the underlying facts that led to this order that also was the subject of a pretrial motion underlying facts it is a not it that order of protection has that specific language in it which this court did which that order gave in addition why did not overbroad is because these orders are only limited in their door ation this is not a lifetime ban this is a ban for the duration of the court order in this case when mr boyd found himself charged in pennsylvania the court order had only required him to surrender his firearm for six months in fact there was another hearing scheduled for september th at which time the parties would come back before the court we don't know what would happen at that at that point but these but these court orders do indicate that a permanent or final order of protection would be in place for five years so in that respect this is clearly narrow in terms of its breath and it's  outweighed any profit value associated with the background myself that might be cruel if there weren't instructions given to the jury about the way that they should consider this evidence but there were repeated instructions to the  y on how to consider it and i think that should be adequate to cure since one we have to preserve the jury follows their instructions to assume that the jury did follow the obstructions