safety code eleven three fifty eight cultivation of marijuana was an aggravated felony this is where the error occurred it's our position that eleven three fifteen is not an aggravated felony now when we began with the teller analysis looking at that first step the contact prohibited in eleven three fifteen is broader than that prohibited under the federal statute now eleven zero one eight forty three b defines aggravated felony and makes reference to nine twenty four c and section eight zero two of the controlled substances act you know to thirteen and eighteen to twenty two both the fine manufacture and production now specifically eleven three fifty eight criminal anyone who plants cultivates harvests dries process's any part of marijuana now in this case the specific language that i'm focusing on is the language of dry that contact is not prohibited under the federal definition of manufacturing in production now for example if an individual understand it a lot were typically used off of the marijuana plant give those leaves to another individual in turn and that individual driving those leave that person would be guilty of eleven three fifty eight i can't fathom how a person who did that same crimes act would be guilty under eight forty line the federal money factoring statute now alternatively then in turn held the plant and that actually could constitute aiding and abetting liability but i think the important question here is what do we look at in determining what kind of actually happened and we can't look to the transcript of the immigration proceeding seventy one after thirty six thirteen at six twenty one the court stated there when we're conducting a modified categorical approach we can't look specifically they use the example of testimony that occurred at an immigration proceeding that the judge the government would need to rely taking that a farther step the other problem that we have in the evening in the betting live melody and the issue of natural and probable consequences which the government addresses in their brief as well although both the federal aiding and abetting liability addresses problem probable consequences as well as the state the state interpretation of that is much much broader the state actually does not require that either in a better share the in terms of the principal is much broader than the i do new york or federal definition of aiding and abetting liability addressed in joining us is jr or excuse me is california state aiding and abetting liability broader then the federal to new york definition that is not an issue pending before the supreme court however that issue is approach all the government needs to do is to submit adequate documentation which really is not that burden some of something quite agree that's correct  three fifty eight is an aggravated felony if it is an aggravated felony as the government contends and the immigration judge was correct that appellant two thousand and four deportation hearing to conclude that he was not eligible for cancellation of removal and just an aggravated felony because the conduct that is prohibited there is also punishable under the controlled substances act section forty one of the controlled substances act makes it a crime to manufacture a controlled substance as appe acknowledges and admits manufacture under that federal law includes production and processing and then production is further defined to include planting cultivation harvesting the precise conduct that is prohibited by section eleven three fifty eight state law it might be that the california legislature saw some distinction or thought that for whatever reason in drafting the statute they included dry and processing but i think congress would be surprised to learn when they prohibited the manufacture of controlled substances that that doesn't also include the drying of marijuana that that conduct of manufacturing and in fact i mean the plain meaning of these words we're talking about preparation processing in order to render marijuana usable in a smokable form it's going to be dr talents underlying it in one thousand nine the one conviction for planting a cultivating a marijuana charges him in the conjunctive with planting cultivating harvesting drying and processing and so when he pleaded guilty to that charging document if i may regret addressed that the issue that was before the immigration judge in concluding that this was an aggravated felony and i know that he admitted that it was an aggravated felony or that he was a principal rather and that's not a proper problem under taylor because the immigration judge was in considering documents that in fact he wasn't considering documents at all they haven't stood up under oath before the immigration judge has said i did this and that's where the focus needs to be because it's at that point that the determination this me that he's not eligible for cancellation of removal and whether the immigration judge was correct or not that subsequently being reviewed by the district court judge so i think that we're not in the realm of includes promotion instigation and that includes the natural and probable consequences from it i don't know if you're honest with me to address the grayness matter i don't think that the supreme court's resolution of that case necessarily so that when the sort of the charging document says that he was in charge of the crime of cultivating marijuana in violation of the in that was committed