notwithstanding the specification of a different manner in the complaint and information well how does that answer the question a question for divisibility purposes is whether or at least one of the significant questions is whether the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the offense well the fact that if if i'm understanding this correctly the fact that under let's say that's subsection two that you whatever you charge doesn't have t into being proved it doesn't mean that you don't have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt whatever ends up being proved in other words what the evidence supports and so why would not argue for the notion that there are elements as opposed to me that's a good question your consolidated thout she could have been convicted of embezzlement also the either or framework that she was charged with want to and i noted that they've been in your brief but how does that square with age eleven eighty wind right which goes back to the question of whether you have a few prove beyond a reasonable doubt whatever is being charged the and i understand where you're getting that information from i'm getting from the eleven eighty dissent because i think that gives a very fair that you want us to do the ruling that the sat no i do not your honor i believe this is going to what's the purpose of the argument the the the purpose of the reading of the dissent is because the prosecution wasn't bound by pleading the proof if that was the case and since they were the complaint information was under one name and she wasn't found guilty of one a necessarily or the court couldn't make that determination because the jury could have picked it under under either one  overturn a conviction as long as there was sufficient proof in the waste of one or two why doesn't that go to the notion that you still have to prove either one or two beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore you have to have they are elements i'm not actually there's a lot you don't know art style it's a requirement prove elements very true i would agree your honor it is a little strange and i cannot state i'm an expert in nevada how they is mentioned but i would ask is it is it traditional practice and nevada vent to tell the jury that they had the unanimous in reaching their verdict as it relates to what ever that were provision subdivision subdivision or the best that you can find in other words you could have had a situation where in fact you said all right jury evidence supports another provision fine reject the unanimous and finding elements of that intoxicated and even though there's three separate ways of committing the dui offense the tabish court says the jury didn't have to agree on how he committed it as long as there's evidence to support he either committed it while we believe that we present the argument that the plane reading of the statute would propose would lead to a conclusion that it would be an individual statute but if you're unsure about how the batter worded their statue you can look at the case law and the  specifically but the third step is when you go to the complaint and information or even the jury instructions of all these things your answer still unknown the offense isn't categorically except defense or in this case and it's over nationality act and therefore an aggravated felony the judge in the conviction in the case identifies the statute of conviction as section two a five point zero eight three two   looking at mena for example out of the fourth circuit one of the things that you see if you look at cases for example from the supreme court involving stealing of cars or notional stuff or even when the seventh circuit originally  performance or to somewhere else in coming to the result after an hour after looking at the model penal code black's law dictionary and the statutes in various states how they combine fast into one big mass and that included historically larceny i mean recent history larceny investment things like false pretenses and then came to the sort of generalized definition of a theft being what was taking reckless eyes of control of property without  and really what's happening here is that congress meant to have these two buckets and so the false pretenses offenses right the ones where one has material misrepresentations such as the cases such as the provision and one see here margarita the board says yes that's right that those stuff the census moves out there's going to be a little sliver in here where you have an overlap it's not you know one or the other you're going to have that have to be you know you're going to have some overlap because what congress intended to do here was not have a what a gap you know that's year and then oh you know impediment which for whatever reason does not have consent and we civil under masses as as just as council that if you look at three things right you look at the statutory structure we look at the case law and if things are kind and we still can't figure it out we take a peek at the at either the jury instructions which we don't have here because she's left or you look at the charging documents and see what the prosecutor felt like the prosecutor was required to charge you with the structure of the statute it's pretty clear that  themselves to give an example you can look at one day compare that to one jay right one is your typical larceny offense where you have to have the intent to deprive one jay is this carrying away of gasoline or automotive parts that are traditionally for sale but there doesn't have but there's no specific instance of a pride in that provision whether or not you've got gasoline or water is a crisis that is you know determines whether you have to multiple times for that same for that same sort of nucleus offense that's what that that's what that provision seems to be working out as opposed to oh this is just one big we're just sort of advised me this is one big abbess looking at the say cases themselves i mean cases such as hancock very clearly indicate that you have to show i mean they state that you have to establish the various what you have to allege a particular support and prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt it's in the language of the cases themselves and then finally even if you think this is all kind of you know motion it's not it doesn't resolve the issue we can look at the information the complaint in this case under the modern conception of stuff so yes