iranian instruction to the jury which in effect directed a verdict in favor of the government by omitting an essential element of the offense the second reason is that there was insufficient evidence presented to the trier of fact that mr  young youngblood that emotion and of course the last one is the court's admission of the four hundred four b figure fingerprint evidence given the fact that the court's instruction misstated the the counsel for mr straw on two occasions basically said said explicitly to the court when the issue came up quote it's clear on its face that he had knowing he had to knowingly possess to a federal and that's on page three fifty nine of the record the court ultimately said to counsel i don't think that's the law i think that trial counsel's assertion on two separate occasions that quote it's clear on its face that he had knowingly and possessed pseud so i think that given the trial counsel's assertions to the trial court i think that didn't an overall standard of review in this case is appropriate i think what's most important about this case is that nature of the whatever chemical he possesses because you have two different two different elements that require to be right you must knowingly or intentionally possessed a list of chemical right well it's just that's why we quoted the staples decision because written in such a way so that's broad enough that it can include a number of chemicals that are used there's obviously more than one prohibited chemical that's used in the manufacture of a particular drug in this case in the pseudoephedrine but i don't think just because the statute  broad enough to include a various number of drugs at that relieves the government of its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that he possessed something otherwise to them the reason i ask counsels because it's forty one if they also have the knowing or marijuana and so they want to argue that therefore the no way to counter the defense counsel tried to argue that you had to know that in fact you possessed cocaine and if you thought you could just marijuana then you were off the hook correct and we have rejected that with fans and  an interesting point and the government cites korans and ramirez ramirez for that proposition but those cases are factually distinguishable from in very significant ways in each of those cases those were smuggling cases where the defendant drove  in one case he drove over one in another case he was writing in the passenger compartment in both cases if it gave statements and in both cases the defendants gave statements admitting that they knew that they had some controlled substance they admitted for example oh i thought it was marijuana they didn't say nothing they said oh i thought i had marijuana and what happened is that then trial counsel tried to offer a mistake of fact to say defense to say well because i thought i had marijuana in fact i had cocaine i'm not guilty in the court said he admitted that he had some controlled substance in his possession he cannot escape criminal liability but merely by saying i was mistaken about what i had and that's that's one curious as to why you keep wanting to had something so we take out sue a federal and we put in some list of chemical the government still has to prove that he knew he had it and you can't know you have something unless you know what it is and that's why we say that's why the supreme court has been very consistent in the stables decision the man had a weapon he the government had to prove that he knew it was a machine gun he had and that's the same thing here there's no evidence presented to the government that mr estrada in fact  knew the nature of the chemical that he had there's no evidence at all whatsoever and i think because of that the first element was not met it was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt now th second element that he would have to know he would have to know or have reason to know that the list of chemical would be used to manufacture that's a different element and that addresses a different issue we speak specifically to the first element or you were not but if the government gets over th require the manufacture of medicine methamphetamine and there's not glassware and there's not some other things but i think the government still has to prove that he knew what those pills were and because the alcohol is not one of the listed chemicals as the government was pointing out over and over in the trial court they don't get to they don't get to impugn knowledge to him based upon the fact that he had all of this nature of alcohol in the vehicle but i think the government had a burden to prove it well and that's my second argument to the sufficiency of the evidence argument that he did know the first that there was insufficient evidence presented by the government when he was carrying it and he was a passenger his the defense's position was so is your position that he was surprised to find that there were pills in the back of the truck or is your position that he was surprised to learn that the pills were a a list of chemical well i have no position about he has his state of mind because that wasn't proved by the guy he's not supposed he's not surprised you know these caring acetone or teenager alcohol well i can't make that presumption because that's really not supported by the record your honor i think  there is the presence of this alcohol i think that in this particular case the government had proved that carrying pseudoephedrine or did we have to prove that he knew he was carrying pills which were in fact pseudoephedrine in other words the government had to prove that he was more than a blind mule he was more than somebody who who that the government must show that a person knowingly or intentionally possesses a controlled substance the government that we have we leave the government of proving the the precise identity of a controlled substance that is whether it was marijuana or for cocaine so that eight forty one c consist of there are different charges they're there at all and i understand that but we have almost identical language but the almost is where the rub is in this case because the guilty knowledge for eight forty one a one lies in there is only one way to be guilty of that well to possession or distribution but the guilty knowledge lies in the knowledge that you're in fact carrying or distributing a controlled substance under eight forty one c one there's two knowledge requirements one that you know you actually possess in this case the pills and two that you possess those pills with the knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that they are going to be used in manufacturing got a completely controlled substance as opposed to a listed chemical then the crime is either knowingly or intentionally possessing or just stripping so there are different statutes they can be reconciled in simply that way that there are different statutes attacking very different behavior what mr poor construction would do would allow mr estrada to hide behind the argument well you can't ever know that what i what i knew in my head  a circumstantial case the volume of the pills and died with the acetone and all the other things that you've you've already mentioned were very clear in leading the jury to the only reasonable conclusion which was that he was transporting the pills to make methamphetamine but but what would we do in a situation where a defendant said well i didn't know that it was pseudoephedrine i thought that it was a federal and those you know you haven't proved that i knew it was  personally purchased some of the teenagers alcohol that very day in union city he was the only person found in proximity to the rollover accident in an extremely remote location and i would point you to supplemental experts of record that have the photographs of this particular location it was the only person there all of that time together with the four zero four v evidence that was introduced that his fingerprint found twenty two liter flask nine years prior that was in a storage locker was six hundred twenty five thousand federal health all combined for the reasonable inference that he was taking these pills which were in fact pseudoephedrine there's no dispute about that with the knowledge or reasonable morton part here is that mr straw i was driving a truck with a camper shell stuff was in the back of the truck under the camper shell this is not the same thing as kuranda and ramirez ramirez where the defendant admitted that he knew he had some substance there's no evidence that he would actually knew what was in the back of the camper shell what happened was this was a rollover vehicle accident and after the accident the pills and stuff was spread all over there was no evidence that he even knew that there was anything in the back of the truck