issue concerning the allegations of misconduct i assume the court will see the government's twenty j letter from a couple days ago conceding error with respect to the use of the reports during the cross the count was not a fantastic defense that it was possible that he had it as an explanation for the reason that he was in the car and that was enough and foster the defense was that the person was in mexico supporting himself by playing guitar and receiving tips and that he ended up driving the car cross the border because his guitar was washed away in a flood defense like that is found by this court to be plausible case the government use this law enforcement report to go directly at the believability of the most important witness in the most important part of the case which has just occurred as this testimony not only during this cross examination but three times during closing argument and given the believability of the story the innocent explanation that he gave and the direct attack unconstitutional attack upon his his account by the government i know less than five occasions during trial i can't i can't imagine that that the court cannot find that to be affecting substantial rights which just resonated with twenty years in prison based upon a conviction in which the evidence outside the record reality purposes the report was before the jury the inspector testified that she wrote report repressed recollection from the report she was not cross examined at any point regarding any discrepancies in the report or omissions from the report it was so mexico and he greased the company him down in mexico at seven thirty or seven o'clock on a friday night to pick up this car course he doesn't remember the name of the mechanic shop either they get done in mexico they hang out check out the car for two hours and then have this discussion about how how these questions or these statements made and then act on the jury remember none of this was ever objected to by defense counsel at any point during the trial and the trial court itself never interested at any point cases we might as well take the fight back to brown first and throw it out the window because all that's going to come in every case is a felony and there's your honor pointed out loud as a utility of telling the jury that the thing that has been convicted of just a generic felony the jury has no idea what it was for this account by mr super else was not only plausible it was actually a good defense supported by independent evidence the to the contrary if you would by the question is whether this report which was not objected to the jury didn't buy it i believe because the government not an isolated fashion throughout the cross examination and throughout closing attacked his testimony with evidence outside the record the government doesn't seem to believe there's a thinking it was a travesty that there was no objection for these numerous instances of misconduct i don't know what the district court was thinking letting that letting this occur but again this is with relatives doing twenty years right now based upon a conviction his testimony the most crucial part of the case was repeatedly attacked and undermined by a law enforcer report that was never introduced into evidence and for not have been accused you know thank you very much from me that