the people who participate in the volunteer program of the forest service can participate in any activities that the forest service people can participate in this is the public authority issue  but doesn't turn on whether the manager of the carpool had the authority in part and to let me explain why i said that the the the purpose of this argument that i was trying to address is what would seem to be important to the court and a reason to deny the rule twenty nine motion was it mr cooper was driving the forest service vehicle and therefore falsely impersonating a far service officer an argument is no he had authority to do that he was solicited by the fleet manager it was given to on the fleet manager had some restrictions to mr mr cooper there was testimony from from other people that mr mr cooper get a good deal more than just move the car that's true and that gets in this theory cooper state of mind because he believed the power in the forest service syria to stop and talk and get identification from visitors then mr cooper did under sixteen u s c five five eight is that places you can do whatever activities forest service officers or do no i think you did have a feeling so you a do whatever whatever force service people were entitled to do that's a broad range of people i mean includes a couple of law enforcement officials who based may stop people and make inappropriate certain circumstances issue arrest i want to know whether agriculture is authorized to use the service of individuals without compensation as volunteers for in aid of interpreter functions visitor services conservation measures and development or other activities services up to a point volunteers means nothing you actually have to show the somebody there's somebody will actually party delegates from the secretary truck cept that and then that person we have placed the court in on arts and on behalf of the united states the district court here did not abuse its discretion in declining to give a public authority or good faith instruction because as some of the prior questioning indicated it was simply no factual basis because there was no indication that mr wire had any actual authority to either give the law enforcement vehicle to the defendant or to that he in fact authorized him to do any of the acts that were the basis of this charge so this is a very sympathetic defendant he's a retired police officer he volunteers his time to the forest service to help in an effort which the reason we believed to probably be a failure of proof on the second element of impersonation because this is a two element defense it's right enough to impersonate he also would have to act decide and that would require that he you know commit some kind of act  consistent with it seeking to cause the deceived person to change their course of conduct to do something they wouldn't have done but for the defendants are built as you can see then that the defendant did have the authority to around so it would be visible impression of law enforcement up to that point no problem well he did not have actual authority to do that because mr outlier didn't have about well apparent authority relates to the other sort of permutation i guess of innocent intent that the defendant relies on and whether that defense is available of course depends that section nine twelve does not have a separate intent to defraud element and there is no affirmative defense of lack of intent to defraud so that defense would not be available and less it negated one of the elements of the offense and here it doesn't because there is no intent to defraud element so we have first no actual authority because all of the evidence or trial show that mr around here is not have the authority to give that law enforcement vehicle to the defendant that the regulations provided that law enforcement vehicles can only be driven by law enforcement the volunteer regulations provided that volunteers cannot engage in law enforcement and the just well mr gear was charged with conversion and the defendant was charged in the conspiracy count with conspiring to convert but the jury acquitted on the conspiracy c you know the evidence at trial really focused solely on the fact that this was a law enforcement vehicle it does appear that if it was forest service vehicle that mr al gore might have had the authority to assign that but he certainly didn't have the authority to authorize nor did he actually authorize the defendant to do the actions that were the basis of the offense which was stopping visitors in the forest flagging them down and asking for their personal information and identifying information the lesson here if we were to affirm it is that nobody should volunteer to the forest service except to take a risk that they're going to get prosecuted for doing something i respectfully disagree with that your honor because there is no indication that the defendant was ever asked or authorized to do the acts that he did so i would suggest that the lesson is if you volunteer do your job and don't go around acting like a law enforcement officer and flagging people down and asking for their identification that's what the defendant did that caused his conviction for impersonation because that's what the acting as such  so this is not a situation where there is some kind of unfairness and you know frankly there is keeping logs of people you keeping lots of people with you know their date of birth their home address their driver's license their personal information there is absolutely not a shred of evidence that the defendant was ever authorized to do any of those things or they'd he ever informed elde wire that he was doing any of those things so i would suggest that the moral is if you are going to engage in those acts you need to fully inform the person who gave you authority and get their specific authorization you know there is another do all these things why some of them no good but well i think that we get to another area of public authorization which really hasn't been briefed here which is the sort of stoppel due process official misleading theory and that's one of the official mistakenly give somebody authorization to do something i think in that case you know there are a number of requirements that have to and i say someone that's a very good question your honor and i don't know the answer i don't think it was explored a trial exactly what that parameters of these volunteer agreements are so i don't know the answer  and the defendant did not have that here and there was more than sufficient evidence that the defendant engaged in in the impersonation acts there was also more than sufficient evidence that he made a false  prosecuted just requires the act to search the second clause requires that that the defendant obtain something of value and he was not prosecuted under that clause so there was no evidence that he obtained something of value but there was more than sufficient evidence from four witnesses who were flagged down that he acted as likewise with respect to the false statements there was overwhelming evidence that the defendant said he did not request or demand id in fact did this was not simply situation where people came up to him and handed over their identification they gave it all four witnesses testified that they gave him the information he asked for because they believed he was law enforcement and finally