and the government could not get around this important requirement by simply alleging that it was being useful impeachment purposes and prior border crossings were prior acts subject to four four b because not examining mr gummy now not only did the government go into the prior crossings between april fourteenth and april twenty fourth but this but the government's counsel the specifically went into the tiny five it's improper impeachment for two reasons first of all as i stated it stated it's fourth or the other end and the notice requirement was not met and there just clearly states that if the evidence is being introduced for four for the purpose  because she was given to defense counsel i believe approximately two days prior to trial you have an opportunity investigate those tax records and that for all for being not only requires that the government provide the evidence it's going to be introduced but they have to provide notice that it will be for used for for for the purposes that wasn't done in this case the government introduced it was it used for or for purposes when it was just brought i you mean for impeachment purposes you know i came in they may have tried before but my i think our our collective understanding is that that was excluded on the direct case and chief now you're saying they backdoor didn't practice to achieve through cross examination because there's a concern that opposing counsel me manipulate the questioning trap and unwary witness into providing statements and if we look at the cros exact date question but somewhere around their answer probably she calculated able fourteenth april twenty fourth not only is that much broader than the two and a half weeks that mr testified and he said it was before going to chicago and it was a construction job of three date so according to the government's own calculations if you left for chicago on the twenty fifth of april his construction job would have been on the twenty second twenty and the twenty fourth regardless of that fact the government was allowed to bring in a much wider scope of dates between abel fourteenth and april twenty fourth and cross examine him on those dates occurred as far in the entire range between three weeks before and all the way up on to april twenty third which was a week and a couple days that he had jobs in the united states and the goal appears to have been to show that he was a hard worker and lived in the united states and had no reason to go to mexico to transport drugs and  when he said two and a half weeks that entitled the government in the district courts discretion to cross examine him about what he meant by that time frame and i think it was reasonable for the eight i say to its earlier ruling that it could become his forum for all the references i've seen and unfortunately i don't have a transcript of the eliminate the hearing at which the and i haven't seen the record or transcript of that hearing which the judge actually made that's for a four uncle who lived in mexico according to the direct testimony had brought the truck that few times and that in that district courts there's just a car properly allowed cross examination on that point as well i'd just like to point out a couple things first i'm directed to testify they had a construction job about two and a half weeks that did permit the government to try to find out what that meant and the government did and mr goodnow testified that his construction other evidence came in people fourteen to twenty fourth and i know it's confusing and i believe that was confusing to me it would come in with respect to those three right it would have been ok but with respect to any of the days that were with what he opened up for pursuit on cross but they couldn't go beyond that and that's what they did and they expanded your point the testimony of mr comey you know on cross examination but i think that the one text record comes and just because i'm calculating based on the government's calculation as to when history applies but even being very lenient and using the government's interpretation of doesn't think that and but that's the way it was interpreting the government's counsel and finally allow the government to provide their tax records prior to trial again and they didn't say what the purpose was they just said it would be used for impeachment