excluded helpful evidence to didn't mr taylor's defense the second is that mr taylor was prejudiced by the government's closing argument in rebuttal and the third is that his nine twenty four c conviction should be reversed and i had tried to follow up in argue my case at the minimum needs to be remitted for the sentencing i'm on the issue of the exclusion of evidence there's two pieces person responsible for the attack on mr wood that it was actually mr roach did the government present evidence against mr roach to the grand jury i don't believe that they didn't run it but i am not positive about that but the government in its lead is still identifies him as a coconspirator so whether the grand jury choose to indict him or not they're providing that information truthful information to the defendant and so in order for a government to tell th if the government says we have reason to believe that he may be and that a coconspirator how how is that in itself an mission well because i'm a new course of the trial the government basically told the defendant but the fact that they implicate somebody else doesn't mean that their cell phone culture tori and i think if you read the judge's reasoning here it seems that she thinks the statement shouldn't come in and because mr giddens was identifying being with the other diet co are around the same time that the incident took place and that his description better matches that of the assailant as opposed to roche and therefore if you can put in there right this other evidence th but that he corrected it but that's not really true i mean the everybody know it's he says at least i think six times that the defense counsel was testifying that he's not allowed to testify and obviously this is why did there's a wide berth  basically that if you i was you know trying to figure out how how can you differentiate these two standards and i went through them being standard for under the c c a and then if you read the standard under ninety four which basically it was a month ago and i apologize for not catching it before marriage by great but it's almost exactly the same issue where there were several press credit that's one of which may not have been a violent brought to them in the first place i mean the government suspected of good will and not as not the court is brought out the governor did not deny that he was questioned but he was found there the facts sort of underlying his involvement as they were known to the government were brought out of trial so agreement about ninety four c three b and i think quickly so for the reasons we cited in that particularly the second circuit any you know we cited which is the language of the statutes is different in significant grace most important to two most risk of each of them through mentioned crimes is not itself consistent and the second point is that really the way that it is rafted it is narrowly tied to the risk of physical violence taking place in the course of the crime and not the risk of physical injury which we argue whether the crime by its nature includes the risk of physical force being used and here i think with respect to the two statutes we focus on and the government's not pressing that being such a statute but the assaults on impulse toward assault on a federal employee