feet of community centers that are quote used for school purposes like the communities that are at issue in the state versus wade decision the government does not dispute that a property like that does not constitute the quote unquote real property that is actually owned by a school who are its users on a regular basis for two hours a day and a set time with over one hundred students that are being bused there by school bus question of whether property constitutes the real property comprising a school one of the federal statute could turn on whether or not it happens that a township or a city has passed an ordinance designating the property a school facility i think is the language trump state versus white the court is to brush right didn't in its analysis totally rely on that fact and i'm not aware of any authority holding that for purposes of the federal statute that is meaningful in fact i think the authorities to the contrary the eleventh circuit for example is held in a case involving a playground but the fact that the playground had a sign that said this is not a public way ground w here seems to be just one further indication that we've had the circumstances that i was describing earlier can directly have a new thing in that what you have is on the face of it by all circumstance it appears to be in school at center that was used by students for a certain portion of the day but it was unattached to a school it was over by the school board and we stay out for various types of recreational purposes within the community that were not related to school activities  and i don't believe the government has has argued at all or taken the position that to decide this issue of the township doesn't issue that a property like that or a public park or a basketball court or any of the statute simply because they're used for school purposes i think i don't think there's a dispute that those are conceptually different things and i think that result first directly from the plain meaning of the statute that the federal statute uses the words real property compromising school and comprising the dictionary definition is can see exclusively out and i think it's relative i think it's relatively clear that that that portion of the federal statute is referring to schools themselves even if there are other types of properties that the federal statute then goes on to rest like that or shock so with this that are now it's it's  we regularly used by the community but it thereby lose its character as comprising school i don't think so right i think if i understand your question correctly a gymnasium that is in the school is part of the school property it is part of the real property comprising the school and we're a drug offense to take place within a thousand feet of that property i don't think there is that it was covered by both of these statutes the state and federal but you know as we try to lay out the brief i think there are a lot of examples of types of properties and types of conduct that would fall outside the federal statute including in particular and if i may just go back to because i'm going to think it's probably the most clearest example a community center to qualify under the federal statute has to be asked to qualify as you said or let's assume that it does  even if it does the federal statute only prohibits drug distributions were one hundred fifty of a property like that the state statute prohibits scuse me drug distributions and offenses within a when the school uses it every school day in fact no school days would that be considered real property comprising the school which is the generic analog i don't think so your honor because our brief comprising has a plain meaning it means consisting exclusively of school i don't think there's any question looking at that provision is that when congress wrote those words what it had in exclusively in that matter for some part of the year for certain hours of the day and thereby becomes real property comprising the school we're looking at the question of whether school property for scoo and therefore it's real property comprising the school but i'm not really that that really gives us a way to distinguish and those two functional uses as long as it's on property that in fact owned by the school board in both cases think i think you're referring to the government's argument that that affirmative defense because it applies to a school bus and not school property must mean that there are different elements i'm not aware of any authority to that shift the actual burden of proof on and on and omit like mens rea are back to the government that would seem to suggest if one is tied to strict liability offense one is one require just the government with only a minimal showing on the part of the that is if if it doesn't matter as it was true in that this which it is aspects of the jury found then it wouldn't have been necessary to drugs from my purse and i'm not supposed to be giving them to you but i do to make some money on the side of my dispensing them to you what we don't know is work really trying to figure out if it's an element or a moon and what we do under the now those tests is walk through this procedure and we just don't know it's unclear and the government is willing to concede that but you're under new jersey statute maybe but we just talk about the  implication of gar those are just alternative means of meeting a particular element challenge for the government to novick it as far as a statutory requirement they still haven't been proved up on a given a decision by the board now given this record it's likely an anon issue because you would likely satisfy a but the one thing that has not been  has not happened was in that sense it was the petitioner that was appealing so it wasn't the there was no decision for the department of homeland security to appeal in that regard it was a decision that once the immigration judge found   but there are safeguards in place and i think the important thing to take away from this is that even if petitioner is no longer statutorily an eligible as an ag we still don't know whether or not he is deserving of this discretionary form of a relief as a matter of