his conviction is not a crime of violence the first is that a trailer coach under california law does not constitute a dwelling or structure under a taylor analysis the second reason is california's definition aiding and abetting liability is broader than the general federal definition of aiding and abetting and finally third california's interpretation of aiding abetting as applie to find one of those things so the mere fact that it's in the conjunctive means the judge getting a factual basis for the theory could have only found one of these different structures it really doesn't make sense that this that was three different structures and the abstract of judgment so we don't know based on what the government presented to the district court exactly what dearie that he pled guilty to further because  implied in every complaint under california law he could have been convicted under an aiding and abetting theory even though that theory is not alleged in the complaint and this court specifically held that recently in so going back to the trailer coach definitions in california a trailer coach is essentially a vehicle it's designed for either a human occupation or habitation but also for commercial purposes it has to be able to carry its property on its own structure and it has to be able to be drawn by a motor vehicle and this means it's somewhat someone like a railroad car or a cargo container and winner winner this kid this court spelled with a lawsuit in statute that allows for burglary even of an inhabited railroad car cargo container or fenced area that that meet the definition of structure that taylor requires and it has to be more of a permanent structure not just like a car so even though that this this trailer coach could be inhabited it doesn't change the nature of the structure meaning just like a car a railroad car a cargo container someone could be living in those things doesn't change the character of it because that washington statute required that someone be living or using those structures railroad car cargo area for habitation so simply because it can be used for habitation doesn't mean it is in the california case law is clear that these are linda because in sheppard and in all the taylor cases the inquiry that you have to make is whether or not the individual necessarily played to a individual necessarily pled to one of these offenses and it's just like in piniella are that argument when applied because that complaint was charged just as a principle but this court still held that because under california law he could be convicted under aiding and abetting theory that it was still over broad and you needed more judicially noticeable facts such as the plea coll requires that the internet better share the intent of the principle and california law allows for someone to be convicted without having the intent to commit the the government i didn't receive it till monday i did the court received my response letter you're ok and i want to go through that because now for the first time they're saying well there's this federal concept of natural and probable consequences that it applies the same well it does it basically under federal law you can be ignorant of some of the facts and still be held liable under an eating betting theory but federal law clear you have to have the same intent and meet all the elements intent elements of the principle i think the best case to really show this is the short case that is the side that is cited in the government's papers so in short they use the natural and improbable consequences language but later in that opinion specifically holds that the eight are in a very at a better couldn't be liable for the armed  robbery and less the government specifically proved that they had the same intent to use the firearm and that's really the distinction if you look at the cases federally they have a requirement that they have the same intent of the principle but on the other hand the cases that are using the natural and probable consequences languages you have you have you can be liable for the natural probable consequences of your actions being for example in that i believe it's the binet case that the government cites the individual was giving a recipe to make drugs to manufacture drugs and gave the person the exact abetting is assumed in every california complaint so just because a california place complaint doesn't allege aiding and abetting it's assumed in the indictment so a guilty plea to that charge doesn't per close as shep requires does not foreclose the fact that the person could have been convicted under any abetting theory that's the same thing that could happen in federal court you could be charged as a principle you going to plead guilty of aiding and abetting that complaints not going to show that you whole the whole analysis you would just look at the documents and say where we go from there absolutely not you have to look at the documents and the law to see and you have to shift it to say has the government for close every possibility and they have it here generic offense yes they have to for a club they have to necessarily show this court and that's the word necessarily show that he pled guilty to a predicate offense so the loss of california allowed him to be convicted for the trailer coach or the law as a california allow him to be convicted for any of the better the government hasn't done their obligation of foreclosing those possibilities the last area i'd like to talk about is the burglary eighteen event in the step state of california is broader than the federal there's a general rule that burglary is complete on the time you enter the building with the requisite in intent there's also a general rule that you can't be convicted federally of aiding and abetting for an offense that is already a thing completely california is broader than these general rules because example under the general rules if someone is broke into a house and is stealing things and makes a phone call to the owner and veteran says i'm stealing things from this house and i broke in com or any offenses that happened afterwards california is different california when you make that same call the person comes in and as long as you start helping at any time you can be convicted of burglary so california is clearly broader than the generally accepted definition i should want to see a few words about the conviction in this case i think when you evaluate all the issues of whether or not this conviction of has been reversed yet to look to basically the context of the entire trial this trial is about a month is the fence the fence was that he was coming to the port of entry to see if he could come back and enter in contrast to that the agents were saying at the primary and faction he said he's a us citizen he never mentioned anything so this case was really about credibility of why mr aguilar was coming to the port of entry the a united states citizen that former inspector testified at trial he testified at trial and on direct is when before there's any allegation that he was making any false statement whatsoever and one of the reasons is later on he says well i know he's i know he said u s citizens that's what i wrote on my refer so he wasn't relying on that referral for his testimony but that's why i think you have to look at these all together and look at the total fact evaluate the harmless error of what the government could have done or should have done but actually what happened and just because there they may have been evil and we don't know if they would be able to lay the foundation for a record or recollection the bottom well he didn't say he didn't remember if you don't say you don't remember you can't refresh with it so he couldn't get in on that theory anyway but that's why i think i understand it there are some possibly harmless  problems that's why i'm asking the court to look at all the all the errors combined because when mr aguilar in contrast gets at the testify then the government starts piling on that he had four different deportations which i don't see any admissibility on why research reply brief why i believe those are preserved and basically at a minimum at least for the two documents of the two different deportation there is a poor three objection that's clear but as to the government cro abetting so then you want to force a speculation about well was he an aider and abettor or not guidelines include that then you have the recent of the dollar decision in which the court just have this court evil i think that's a very good point your honor actually when we went straight to the modified approach of the term and whether or not he was convicted a crime of violence this court's prior decision united states versus william in which i believe you are a member of the panel specifically to that complaint that he entered inhabited dwelling that he entered inhabited building and that inner trailer coach but five virtue of that he's admitted committing two different offenses here that would come constitute a crime of violence and i think that's what defense counsel saying there for because he could of this could be overbroad and are responsible that doesn't matter because they didn't vetting is included under the guidelines anyway so if for some reason he was in error and better which we have no evidence that he was there's not a one one depended on that complaining that the fan in this case but even if he was it doesn't matter because eighteen of that is included within the guidelines and evolve it all decisions rejected the argument that california law is overly broad and this natural violence it might matter over one stressor to the modified approach and one of the modified approach when somebody pleads guilty to complaints such as that they're emitting each of these elephant elements because each of these acts so i don't think it makes a difference that a and the only the last thing i would just say is as far as the trailer coach argument goes if you look at the case against counsel talks about the mobile lease case when you look at what these relocatable offices are they're actually i think it's clear from the two structures but once again we don't get there because one thing that we do agree here is that on the adventure issues it's important not to look at these each issue in a vacuum and said look at these in terms of the context of this case fans counsel said that the government piling on this case i as you that that's not what happened what happened here was that you have a very aggressive defense you had a defendant who took the stand he testified and made up a story that of all the phantom porn spector and statements opposing made by his wife that only the defendant testified about basing that in and a story about this about the defendant coming to the port of entry to seek permission and the financing that he was confused about how to do that and that he was mistaken in his belief that he could come back united states because the warnings even given his last deportation two thousand didn't have a box checked off on how long you keep out it was the basis for this defense which the government had to respond to and to admit that evidence so for turning first to the referral slip if i can quote defense counsel trial defense counsel he came out in the opening statement in charge made a charge the o bomb the primary specter was lying if i can quote the open stephen he said now you're going to hear from the agent the primary special that mr deal said he was a united states citizen but i want you to know that every other witness even the charge has been made and why i cannot find a case that expressly held that a charge made in opening statement is constitutes a charge in this rule of evidence there are cases out there support the government's position one of those is united states versus reed eighty seven seconds thirty nine years eleventh circuit case where the charges made in opening statement they continued during cross examination and that court held that that was the charge for purposes of the statute to other cases united states versus allen five seven nine at thirty five thirty one and united states versus feldman seven eleven f second seven fifty eight first one allan's and i circuit case there was the seventh circuit case for the sport the gun physician cause in those cases was a similar similar scenario where a charge was made in opening statement but then continued cross examination it makes no sense that the governor would have to wait to introduce the referral slip after after yvonne's been cross examined when the charges mean in the opening statement the charges out there the government introduced the referral statements a prior consistent statement to show that the time he noted down thousand citizens so first there's an express charge of recent fabrication and even if this panel doesn't hold it that sufficient during the cross examination there was an implied charge of fabrication after bomb was was cross examined about statements that the wife made to him and the implication there was that the wife requested to go to secondary when in reality we all survived to testify to was that he was sent the f statement was emitted in that it in evidence and furthermore even if this wasn't non hearsay the government police should have been admissible as a public record and here we compare this almost to warn the officer just documenting the reasons for saying this person to secondary claimed us see no i d that was it was on it was on the floor also furthermore we believe that in any event it's harmless error because the defense introduced turning out of the issue of the deportations once again it's important to look at the context of the case if there was evidence of for deportation that came out but you have to look at the way it came in in the government's case in chief he offered question was you've been deported four times correct correct i then went through each of the four deportations and asked the question which is why this is being listed it what it was and isn't it true that each time you are deported you were given warnings telling you not to come back that you could come back the united states the reason those were introduced was the show that the defendant story about being confused about how do you get permission to come back the united states about mistakenly relying on these warnings he was given which you have a box checked off was false the fact that even given these warnings on four different occasions what it was offered to rebut that testimony it wasn't piling on is a government trying to give the jury the proper addressing the issue of the two felony convictions however introduced once again the defendant decided to take the stand to testify at trial yet six felony prior felony convictions the government asked that he's not a trust that they potentially show he's not a trustworthy person just record noted that the convictions were for first to be refer first degree burglary petty theft with a prior second second degree burglary in grand theft auto and another second degree burglary that these affect his truthfulness and credibility on a lot of the circuit circus excuse me circuit that's permissible that is satisfactory in the united states versus murry similar findings were made in th and once again our arguments are brief we believe that by offering these one conviction on direct examination the defendant has waived his right to appeal either of the two convictions here because the purpose of bringing out on direct so to prove that the government offered him the entire tape and all defense counsel objected to that he didn't want the jury to see the demeanor the thing that the united jets at that time that it contained prejudicial information and fact use a lot of what he's now claiming is pregnancy prejudicial information in his closing argument to to in his words work his way you have any questions that's all i have at this time opinion came out january twenty third and in the last three thera graphs of that decision before the conclusion it first talks about how the government's making an argument how the that the complaint alleged that mr that the defendant committed the offense as a principle the next paragraph this court recognized as did corona sanchez that california allows for to be assumed in every complaint and then concludes thus even if piniella are had pled guilty to the charges unlawful driving for taking a vehicle in the information and felony complaint this alone is eighteen abetting you can't just assume because it's not alleged in the indictment and if the court has problems with williams there's a difference william says alleged in the concert can conjunctive this complaint is an alleged into the and i don't think williams controls as to the trailer coach issue and in this case in williams there wasn't multiple places multiple places that would not categorically qualify actually went into three different places under california law he could have just admitted at the guilty plea to just one under shepherd shepherd requires that the court look to whether or not he