people smuggle birds across the border people smuggle prescription drugs across the border which aren't necessarily controlled substances but they are something that could be stuff that they should be going across the border it was you could be convicted of the five twenty five  second argument is that well it doesn't really matter because you would be convicted anyway basically and i think that there are a lot of things that shoot that down number one well i think the second argument is more to the effect of that that i that i did get the contents out anyway even if i didn't role role and convict them ourselves and a theory that was never presented to the jury i'd like to try to teach the russian issue real quickly and what i'd like to say controlled substance yes and unfortunately those are often incorrect as that's been my experience that often correct or not controlling i don't i'm not even sure if a nice circuit judge that sound comes up with those instructions i think maybe not i think it's  the that he was transporting alcohol or birds or anything else no but the question is what he had knowledge of the specific i don't walk with the knowledge of this sort of a different sort of a different problem from whether we've got a well we have a disconnect between the phrase says that he was taken and left in a holding cell and i think the facts are in this case that's not the case that he was taken to a security office where the handcuffs were removed i'm talking about the r one eighty seven and it was left in security office while the vehicle search i think that's a fundamental distinction because that things is this case from partner where the person was left in a holding cell for his belt was removed his shoes were confiscated and this makes this really a case like bravo and hernandez where course gave a model instruction we have this court in united states a label saying the following although this record judges are not required to give model jury instructions the ninth circuit modeled your instructions correctly state the law under twenty one u s c ny fifty substantive use and not wanting the knowledge to be overused decided that impeachment would be a traditional cross examination with the question being read instead of the notes themselves physically being allowed into evidence she could have done it she could have done it that way it would not have been improper to do it that way and i guess it would not be improper for the government at a time when we're trying to do something like that for those themself to come into evidence but the question is did the district court judge care or was the reversible error because there was one form of i think really it's a discretionary ruling for the just record she was mindful of how that he had been used substantively by defense counsel in opening statement and probably thought that was less confusing for the jury or the jury would not have made there would not have been the gave yourself to give this if you had the form of impeachment this way versus the other way i don't think that she erred in that i think it was discretionary ruling by the district court who was allowed to control the method in and form of evidence coming before the court  contradiction it's finally as far as that but you brought the contradiction up in cross examination and i was trying to but i think if you read through it you see it's real messy one point the district court judge says this is confusing i don't know exactly what i can do what i start