prove proving the elements of the offense is just used it serves no purpose at all it's not relevant at all it's only prejudicial you think if they had admitted that the outcome might have been different and they established that he had suffered a prior conviction correct to the matter of fact was it two convictions yes it was you know right in the judge actually  i think the government originally wanted to introduce more than two and the judge said now we're not going to pile on here we're just going to admit to so i didn't didn't the judge take actions to reduce any prejudicial impact by limiting the number of prior removals he admitted yes sorry he did take some action to stop you know reaching the government but i would still submit that you thousand one move had nothing to do with the case so in your view the district judge abused his discretion in admitting that that to a one that's correct the twenty it was a two thousand and one one prior removal order ok well if you want to save the rest your time for rebuttal and get your point of benjamin hawley for the united states this court of previously held in for example cruiser scotto that multiple prior removals they go to the elements can be admitted that your the government's not limited to doesn't mean if you if you clearly were able to establish twenty what was it the twenty twenty twelve twenty twelve that had been removed on a prior occasion so there are seven so why do you need two or three or four when this case we wanted to for because essentially the hedge in case the jury didn't believe  one and the reason for that is these were actually there's different proof so for example the two thousand and one removal there was assigned warrant of removal that was introduced into evidence but there were no witnesses to the departure that we called whereas on the twenty twelve there was no signature on the warrant removal but we had witnesses him go so each one you thought their credibility might be in doubt not that it would be in doubt but just in case the jury didn't believe them or thought well he didn't sign this paper we don't have evidence that that could be a problem so it acted as a hedge in that sense and that's why the district court said you can do make sure i understood what the district judge did but with respect to the prior convictions when he sanitized them right how did that play out so it was actually one prior conviction with the two part removals but just the one prior conviction and what happened is on cross examination the government said miss raynor lopez have you been convicted of a felony after a crime removal and then the defendant went on essentially said yes that was a somewhat non responsive answer the district court then tried to focus them back on an answer and say no he's just asking where you can have a conviction after he said yes i've been convicted i have several convictions i spent it you know a year and a half in jail on this and continued to amplify his answer basically that there was no in the question posed there was no indication of what there was not it was simply a conviction so mention of the fact that it was a felony or an offense punishable by more than a year and a day is just to meet the requirements of rule six   the matter is submitted thank you counsel