god which is why the proposed struction was that ownership alone without physical access to the jury instruction that was given well the jury struck that was given merely dr in terms of knowledge of presence and physical control or power intention to control it makes no reference to ownership whatsoever and the government certainly argue  there's ownership alone well because your way of jurors could confuse the power and intention to control with ownership generally one who owns something has the power intention to control it confused on what the law in fact was but he because the government said it was not going to object to the defense counsel making the argument he was going to allow your arguments he made but he did not believe that it was a correct statement of law which of course it court told the jury there's certainly no error in with just records ok so that the instructions of the jury that the jury received were not erroneous that's correct that's correct question is then whether the failure to get a different instruction that might also be here we have seven and a half months difference and the instruction was necessary to let the jury know that he could not convict him of possessing a firearm in four when he persisted in july or crys to july  may please the court federal union for the government just like to address the mere ownership theory of the defense quickly the defense is maintaining that the government argued or equated ownership here ownership with possession but if the court  the closing argument advanced by government counsel that's not what the government argued the issue of possession in contrast to the knowledge of the defendant's knowledge that the gun had obliterated serial number and those are two separate albums the issue of concession of knowing possession was joined by both sides in terms of the defendant's ongoing access to the gun which centered on the key the defendant's relationship to the key and the government argued a few things first the government asked the jury to credit the agent's testimony and the agents testified that the defendant actually had the key and gave it to eating ghione who in turn had it transported to agent whitmore alternatively the government a rgued that the jury ought to find now in possession because even if the jury accepted the parents testimony and accepted the defendant's version of the events the defendant still knew where the key was the mother testified that she called the defendant and the defendant told her that the key was inside the drawer so that even on the defendant's version of what happened on the day of the search the jury could reasonably of infer continued access to the gun and the contents of the jar i believe that's what the defense counsel argue and indeed the defense itself in closing acknowledge that the government's evidence on possession turned on the key i believe if the court reviews the closing argument the defense  fabricated this story allegedly fabricated the story about the defendant providing the key to the agents in order to establish that he possessed and therefore had the power of intention to control the  ownership of the gun as well because the government noted that the defendant left his things at his parents house that they were his things and that and that therefore the jury ought to find ongoing possession but the government was careful to point out in the same passage and this is the passage that the cited in defense brief if you wanted to get it you could so the point is again ongoing access beyond the date that explained that yes your honor the government the government's theory was that there was no gaff that even after the defendant moved out the defendant either had the key or knew what the key was and that on either version presented to the version of the facts presented to the jury the defendant had the power in intention to control the firearm after he moved out of the house so on the government's theory there was no gap but the defense was able to get its theory across t defense argued and i believe it's something to the effect of there is no common sense interpretation that would allow you to find july ninth one thousand nine hundred ninety reasonably near february twenty eighth two thousand later on the defense counsel read or or  is the day of the search so they they they exercise they they executed search warrants on that date and they found it found a variety of guns and one of them was this gun which had an obliterated serial number but the government position this is important the jury dinner that the defendant held title to the cyprus street residence with his parents and that is also suggest there's nothing in the record to support the suggestion that that the parents would have denied this defendant access to the house access to the drawer and in fact the defendant knew where the key to the drawer was even if you credit the parents testimony and i think it is important to just to salute that the defense was able to get its theory across  position could have come to the conclusion that they have possession of the day seven seven months out and that's would have been reasonably near not that's not what i'm saying at all you're right and i'm not taking that position at all i just tried to say that on the evidence presented to the jury regardless of which version was accepted the jury could have followed the instructions and found the defendant had the power and intention to control the firearm  gave out the incidence of his action if there was in a strong indication for moving yes ron if there was a strong indication of abandonment but the government's position was and this is what it argued to the jury that whether structure has to be given the court has to look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the defense and in the light most favorable to the sense the defendant did not have access to this guy for seven from more than some half months after he moved out of the house