all i can say your honor is that the government has to look at these cases you know they're coming in fifteen years with more than fifteen years later and trying to look at it you know he had eleven years during which he could have nat sixteen and in that case the petitioner was in her twenty's and she got the order and then sued for for acquisition again in that case just like in this case all of the statute is different and the court there said no you can't do it later and have to have been satisfied before it's a little bit different it's not a no that's not what you but it's a later it's a later statement that the earlier fact is true i mean if he's your father that you know now think that i just think that it's a more difficult standard for someone to become a citizen and i think that the requirement that that service and the state department have that on this and their understanding based on rather but the fact i mean that the state department and the service have to be able to look at something that was presented here to them was you know the marriage certificate the purser to get and the divorce decree thank you thank you very much in that particular incident the defendant that was his case was reversed he was a passenger in a truck that was carrying over forty six pounds of marijuana he was friends with the person that was driving the truck they had he had gone to his house for dinner and many you know different occasions where they had done things as as for him and he was riding in this truck when it crossed the border the customs agents noticed that they just looked a little suspicious so therefore they stopped some further investigation you noticed that the defendant smith was very nervous and he asked him to pull out the ashtray he was extremely nervous and just acted like down you know something was wrong as his hands were trembling and so therefore they did a really more facts to shoulder at the defendant possibly was guilty of a conspiracy however the court again ruled that there was insufficient evidence the evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in this case there while the defendant got seized it was had rented this one child room he was in the hotel room at the time the drug bust went down he was driving one of the vehicles was that was supposed  and was testified as being as part of these two vehicles in this particular drug operation both vehicles cross the border within a minute of each other in addition this particular defendant had five thousand dollars that he gave to another there were no fingerprints on the drugs or with the fingerprints of the other three worked down on the drugs when they did a search of the defendant's house there was no money no drug paraphernalia no drugs however search of the other three co there were there was money drug paraphernalia and other drugs were found nothing at mr mccaskey is the only thing that was found was a report wire planned laying on the floor in the living room with notes on it it was never there was the stand brady was not truthful and brady was involved in drugs at the time and he admitted he had gone in january for a drug deal he had borrowed money to go to do a drug deal you know there are too many facts that are outlined in the briefs to show that bra how they make these cases but your honor i still believe that the government must still prove that a rational jury could have found based on the evidence that was was presented to the jury that beyond a reasonable doubt he was involved merge towards the airport they all you can get off on the air on the freeways very easily to vegas from there you get on the chandra easily from there and it's more like because if you're in hollywood you're not very close to an airport freeway to go to l about what he was doing why he did it where you good before but you have to believe the end justified also and that and the mother just by the end also testified where they were going on the trip and even gravies dad knew that he was going on  trip with his family to disneyland and he was talking about joining and he wanted to join them at disneyland because they were friends so you know they are that they were going on this trip but it was not planned to be where he was at the time and if it had been i mean if it wasn't planned and how was he going to pick up drugs he could not have been carrying drugs in the camp until that time period because if you look at they had nine people in this car with bags ok and every time they stopped bags were taken out and other people were handling the bag so it was no way he could have been carrying a bag of drugs around where could he have gotten the drugs he hadn't gotten it in that time period or they how could he have planned i mean you have to think still am arguing your honor that there was insufficient evidence for a rational jury to have found beyond reasonable doubt that he was involved there was no evidence and if you and again if you look at the time where could he have picked up these drugs mccaskey would they have gone to a hotel in hollywood why they just stayed at the airport and turn around and go right back to hawaii why did they have to go and spend time in a hollywood airport with hotel the same hotel that radium this other look i need a ride i don't have a credit card i can't rent a car to get to my hotel in hollywood could you pick me up great he didn't tell mccaskey that he had two other people with him ok as a good friend then he was a good friend he had done many things the two friends in the restaurant is that they got to the restaurant and raby said look i've got to go out and make a phone call they ordered a meal they went out of the way he was gone for a good forty to forty five minutes and that was just money that was cooperate by the to that w because i couldn't get a hold of the attorney that did the appeal and that appeal was this nearest so now that is a final judgment as to the age fifty one issue he has you know i can see that was that's a viable issue judge did not follow the strict compliance with a fifty one however now that conviction is fine although one is one is other conviction i did receive a letter that he had sent to the court on that one because the prosecutor in one o he had on appeal now the other one was for possession and that was one is that he's claiming that it was not before the lower court that i do have a letter that was written just a few days ago that is claiming that he found out through an i think that's still a viable argument even though the supreme court came down with the three strikes law i think you still have to look at what he did he has not been involved in drugs he has the right to believe there is nothing compared to the people who are in for my from california  their flight and it was on the twenty eighth of march that they were photographed by law enforcement to ask what they are for drug interdiction other drug interdiction assignments it was on the thirtieth of march suspicions of drug detecting canine alerted on the bags of mr hylton as well as mr ione and a subsequent search last search warrant results in the seizure of over five pounds of crystal methamphetamine rice  and as well as another person named ray the what is important is that not only that but hilton was able to describe where callista you live he did a drive by  police he also identified in the photo spread and probably more importantly had at trial he testified that the black bag that contained the drugs was not his was not gravies was not ione and that the most mcallister who said it must be there looks like it's about six to ten pounds in there in the bag describing the drugs and it was mr a i own he said that the strong of the smell was so strong from the guns that he had to leave the bathroom and testified to mr brady obviously was the most important witness arrest warrants the involvement of mr mcallister he was later arrested on the same day as the other two defendants and he provided incriminating statements regarding we could we could get to las vegas easily because the road signs and there were very good next to the airport and that's why we went to the holiday yet near the airport so when we wanted to go back to vegas we could see the signs at the same time he said i i don't i didn't understand i just could used car driving in l a i didn't know where i was told i didn't want to drive to the airfield and that's why i told brady come a little bit further closer obviously the government argued in closing was rakowski was very first in drug trafficking and he didn't want to go to the airport where he knew law enforcement to be in and possibly be caught and therefore he got maybe come closer which was only about a five or ten i think that's a logical argument but i think in this case the facts are such that it is clear that he had known this and i know that the court is very knowledgeable about a fifty one and but i don't know that that's a problem for you particularly in this case i would submit it is not given the facts that we have as far as noticing the definitive action i've given having given the fact that there is no letting the contest one that goes i think i have a question stuff i have a question on that because there may be a problem with one of his convictions still and there works not just to find off the objection that count he has the training had at the time of the pre sentence report on his in drug trafficking he was and he had a conviction for possession and he had a conviction on minor conventionally appealed for and eighth of an ounce that he was a part of and that was in ninety three was his last incident and he had been clean since and because he was on probation and chair so i for the government just they had this history of drug trafficking and he knew how to do it i think that's an incorrect statement because he doesn't know that he had two minor priors and there was no black bag when they arrived in l a somebody had to have gotten a black bag of drugs after the fact or just because they said well i didn't see the black bag we didn't bring it with us well guess you don't bring drugs with you when you're going to take them back that's logical but that doesn't mean anything ride i can afford to rent a car come and get me crowne plaza is down from the airport but not that i mean round it's still easier to get someplace out of l a x because elliot is huge and