[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
We'll move to the next case on the calendar, Liberado versus United States.

[00:00:48] Speaker 02:
Whenever you're ready, counsel.

[00:00:49] Speaker 04:
Thank you, your honor.

[00:00:52] Speaker 04:
This case involves an illegal reentry charge where the defendant was convicted after the prosecution put on some evidence but failed to put on any evidence regarding the observations by the first officer that arrested the defendant.

[00:01:15] Speaker 04:
It is clear, however,

[00:01:16] Speaker 04:
that the arrest took place right at the border fence.

[00:01:21] Speaker 04:
In fact, there's a photograph of the arrested, there was 26 undocumented aliens that were arrested right near a fence.

[00:01:31] Speaker 04:
And the defense, after the case, after the prosecution presented its case, the defense moved for judgment of acquittal on the basis that the government had not shown that there was in fact,

[00:01:46] Speaker 04:
an essential element which had not been proved and that was the absence of, excuse me, continual surveillance by the government.

[00:02:01] Speaker 02:
There was an officer who did arrive there after these... In applying the appropriate test, we can look at direct and circumstantial evidence, right?

[00:02:11] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:02:12] Speaker 02:
And the question is whether one

[00:02:15] Speaker 02:
rational juror could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, right?

[00:02:19] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:02:20] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:02:20] Speaker 02:
So, for example, I'm looking at, on my page it says, I guess it's page 216 of the excerpts when the jury had a question for Agent Mondragon.

[00:02:35] Speaker 02:
Can you clarify whether or not the group of people the defendant was a part of was in view of a security camera?

[00:02:41] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:02:42] Speaker 02:
At 198,

[00:02:44] Speaker 02:
Where's the nearest port of entry?

[00:02:46] Speaker 02:
20 miles further east, 90 miles further west, ER 191 is the specific area where Mr. Liberato encountered.

[00:02:58] Speaker 02:
Is that area amenable or susceptible or under surveillance by a camera?

[00:03:03] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:03:04] Speaker 02:
Why isn't that evidence, as the district court found, from which a rational juror could find that there was an incident when the defendant was not being observed?

[00:03:14] Speaker 04:
Well, because there was an officer who actually was there and did observe and arrested 26 people right at the border.

[00:03:26] Speaker 04:
And that is the witness that the government never presented.

[00:03:30] Speaker 02:
But, I mean, obviously he was susceptible to observation at the moment he was arrested, right?

[00:03:34] Speaker 02:
Because somebody would have had to have been looking at him when they arrested him, right?

[00:03:37] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:03:39] Speaker 04:
And it doesn't necessarily have to be by camera.

[00:03:41] Speaker 04:
It is our consent.

[00:03:42] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:03:42] Speaker 02:
But how does that deal with every other second?

[00:03:46] Speaker 04:
Well, if the prosecution in a case like this, if the prosecution only brings a witness

[00:03:53] Speaker 04:
that shows up after the defendant has been arrested at the border and that witness testifies that the defendant was seen in the United States and there's no other evidence about how he entered, then the government can easily manipulate, as they did in this case we contend, the evidence to simply show that even if there was someone who did watch him in and he was under constant surveillance,

[00:04:18] Speaker 04:
They don't have to prove that element, which is, as I say, an element of the offense.

[00:04:24] Speaker 01:
Wasn't there another officer who testified that they were seen actually on camera crossing?

[00:04:32] Speaker 04:
There was no officer that testified that.

[00:04:34] Speaker 04:
Mondragon testified that he had.

[00:04:37] Speaker 01:
No, the other officer, Hall.

[00:04:38] Speaker 01:
Hall, I thought, was asked whether they were seen by cameras when they crossed, and he said yes.

[00:04:46] Speaker 04:
He was referring to the fact that he had seen the reports and in the reports there was reference to a camera that had apparently observed these people.

[00:04:56] Speaker 04:
But he doesn't say whether he observed them after they had entered or whether he observed them while they were still in Mexico.

[00:05:05] Speaker 03:
Was it clear that the camera was observing this group or could it have been another group?

[00:05:13] Speaker 04:
That's not clear.

[00:05:14] Speaker 04:
There was a couple of groups or actually I think altogether three groups that were being observed that morning or that were at least approached by border patrol.

[00:05:24] Speaker 02:
The district judge in denying your motion said, alternatively, Laster may have only spotted Liberado after he crossed the border.

[00:05:32] Speaker 02:
The evidence does not necessitate nor completely exclude either.

[00:05:37] Speaker 02:
policy, I'm sorry, either possibility.

[00:05:42] Speaker 02:
The government's account was incomplete, but it could permit a rational juror to infer freedom from official restraint.

[00:05:49] Speaker 02:
Liberato presented no evidence to counter this inference.

[00:05:52] Speaker 02:
Obviously, your client doesn't have any obligation to present evidence, but we judged the evidence that was actually presented.

[00:05:59] Speaker 02:
I'm having trouble understanding why the district court was wrong here.

[00:06:03] Speaker 04:
Well, the reason we think the court was wrong is because

[00:06:07] Speaker 04:
The prosecution, as I say, can manipulate the evidence in order to bring witnesses that are only approaching the defendants after they've already entered into the United States.

[00:06:19] Speaker 04:
And let's argue that these defendants were found in the United States.

[00:06:24] Speaker 04:
The person who could have provided the information as to what and how they entered

[00:06:31] Speaker 04:
was Officer Lastra, who was not presented.

[00:06:34] Speaker 01:
The government's response to that, and it doesn't really have to do with the sufficiency question, is you could have called him.

[00:06:40] Speaker 04:
Well, that's true.

[00:06:41] Speaker 04:
We could have called him, but it was the government's burden to prove, as we cited in our brief, that the defendant was not under constant surveillance.

[00:06:52] Speaker 01:
One other thing that I wondered about is that the Mondragon said that Lastra

[00:06:59] Speaker 01:
had encountered them when he was coming to help Mondragon with another group.

[00:07:07] Speaker 01:
That's completely hearsay, right?

[00:07:09] Speaker 01:
But it was never objected to.

[00:07:11] Speaker 04:
It is hearsay.

[00:07:12] Speaker 04:
And he also testified that he knew nothing about the way they entered or what it was that Lawster observed.

[00:07:18] Speaker 01:
But never objected to that.

[00:07:19] Speaker 01:
There was no objection to that as hearsay, which I found very odd, because there were other hearsay objections.

[00:07:25] Speaker 01:
So it seems to be in the record as such.

[00:07:30] Speaker 01:
I mean, it doesn't say where he encountered them.

[00:07:34] Speaker 01:
He could have encountered them as they came in, but it doesn't say.

[00:07:40] Speaker 04:
And that was our contention that he was going to testify that Lester said that he observed them as they came in and that they were under constant surveillance.

[00:07:50] Speaker 01:
And the only other possible shred of evidence

[00:07:53] Speaker 01:
from the government, it seems to me, is that Mondragon said something kind of vague about he didn't see any sign that they had knocked down anything right where they came in, something like that, right where he saw them.

[00:08:17] Speaker 01:
So the notion being that they must have come in somewhere else.

[00:08:22] Speaker 04:
It is vague and he does testify that he did not, wasn't aware of where they came in because he got there after they were already lined up against the border fence by last, that they were being processed.

[00:08:38] Speaker 04:
So, and when asked, he actually testified, he had no idea or had no evidence about or testimony about how and when they came in.

[00:08:48] Speaker 04:
And Lester would have been, as we contend, the natural witness to have testified about that, but the prosecution didn't call him.

[00:08:57] Speaker 03:
Didn't Mondragon also testify that it's a typical practice to move a group to the border for processing, that if they were found, say, 100 yards in, they might be moved over to the border, make it easier for processing?

[00:09:13] Speaker 04:
He does testify.

[00:09:15] Speaker 03:
But he didn't know in this case.

[00:09:16] Speaker 04:
But he doesn't say that that's what happened in this case.

[00:09:20] Speaker 02:
Was there any objection to that testimony?

[00:09:24] Speaker 04:
To Mondagon's testimony?

[00:09:26] Speaker 04:
No.

[00:09:27] Speaker 04:
No, I didn't object to that.

[00:09:30] Speaker 04:
But as I say, Laster would have been the eyewitness and would have been the natural

[00:09:38] Speaker 04:
witness to testify for the prosecution on that point.

[00:09:40] Speaker 01:
What about comparing the facts here to those in the two cases that the government primarily relies upon, which I think are Bela Bahana and Castellanos?

[00:10:00] Speaker 01:
How do the facts here compare to that?

[00:10:03] Speaker 04:
Well, I think both of those... I have the right cases.

[00:10:05] Speaker 01:
I may not, but go ahead.

[00:10:06] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry.

[00:10:06] Speaker 04:
Both of those cases clearly involve arrests or the observations that were made of undocumented aliens after they had entered.

[00:10:15] Speaker 04:
In one case, I think it was at least 100 yards.

[00:10:18] Speaker 01:
Another one... It was a mile.

[00:10:20] Speaker 04:
Another one was a mile, yes.

[00:10:21] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:10:22] Speaker 04:
And as I say, in this case, there wasn't any testimony about where Laster first observed these people, whether they were right at the port of entry, not port of entry, the border.

[00:10:32] Speaker 04:
and whether he observed him coming in.

[00:10:36] Speaker 04:
And that's where the government's failure, we contend, in failing to show that there was, they weren't under constant surveillance, which is a requirement and element of the offense.

[00:10:50] Speaker 02:
They rely on... So, Counsel, you're out of time, but we'll give you a little bit of time for rebuttal.

[00:10:54] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:11:06] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honor.

[00:11:07] Speaker 00:
May it please the Court?

[00:11:07] Speaker 00:
I'm Chris Cavaneas from the District of Arizona, representing the United States.

[00:11:13] Speaker 00:
As a couple of members of this Court noted, the question is what evidence was presented.

[00:11:18] Speaker 01:
And the evidence that was... Exactly what evidence was there.

[00:11:20] Speaker 01:
Excuse me?

[00:11:21] Speaker 01:
The evidence is at least exceedingly sparse.

[00:11:24] Speaker 01:
So what is it?

[00:11:25] Speaker 00:
Actually, I would respectfully disagree with that.

[00:11:27] Speaker 01:
It's exceedingly sparse.

[00:11:29] Speaker 00:
Well, here's what they had.

[00:11:31] Speaker 00:
And I believe that the district court properly analyzed what a jury could reasonably infer.

[00:11:36] Speaker 00:
As Judge Bennett noted, between direct and circumstantial evidence, you can also infer reasonable conclusions.

[00:11:42] Speaker 00:
And a defendant can be shown, if someone has snuck across the border, this court's cases say, the lack of official restraint can be shown.

[00:11:49] Speaker 00:
If there isn't continuous uninterrupted constant surveillance from the moment they enter until the moment they're apprehended, or there could also be freedom from official restraint if they could find that the first time the government saw this person, they evaded government observation while crossing the border.

[00:12:06] Speaker 00:
So we have one of two ways that this could be proven, and I would submit we had both.

[00:12:10] Speaker 00:
Here you have Agent Mondragon, as Judge Bennett, I believe, noted, specifically stating, when asked, were they in area where the camera could be?

[00:12:20] Speaker 00:
He said, no, they were not in view of any camera.

[00:12:22] Speaker 00:
And he explained this for the jury, that there's topography and terrain that goes up and down, there's mountains, there's vegetation, and the camera was not able to grasp where that location was.

[00:12:32] Speaker 01:
At that point where he saw them.

[00:12:34] Speaker 00:
Excuse me?

[00:12:34] Speaker 00:
At the point at which he saw them.

[00:12:37] Speaker 00:
And that would be in that area, in that spot.

[00:12:41] Speaker 00:
So what that means though, is that can support.

[00:12:43] Speaker 01:
But there was another person who testified specifically that they were seen on the camera.

[00:12:50] Speaker 00:
Well, this is, if I can touch on that, that point.

[00:12:55] Speaker 00:
Agent Hall was asked and the defendant tried multiple times to elicit hearsay through Agent Hall about Agent Lastra.

[00:13:05] Speaker 01:
Twice, I think two or three times, that was the state.

[00:13:08] Speaker 01:
Because Laster was not there.

[00:13:10] Speaker 01:
And in fact, the key testimony about Laster was hearsay.

[00:13:14] Speaker 01:
Why it wasn't objected to, I don't know.

[00:13:16] Speaker 01:
Which is that he encountered them on the way, the word was encountered, I don't know where that came from.

[00:13:24] Speaker 01:
on the way to... Mondragon testified.

[00:13:27] Speaker 01:
Mondragon, and that's complete hearsay.

[00:13:29] Speaker 00:
Well, he's relaying why he went, because he had his group of aliens, and then Agent Lastra is coming, and he reports that Agent Lastra ran into this group of aliens.

[00:13:38] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:13:38] Speaker 00:
So there was no objection.

[00:13:39] Speaker 00:
That is in the record, and it's reasonable for the jury to find that if somebody's running into a group of aliens, that those folks are already in the United States.

[00:13:47] Speaker 01:
Why?

[00:13:47] Speaker 01:
Why couldn't he run into them as they're landing, as they're coming in?

[00:13:52] Speaker 00:
You're asking, I think, the court to examine it from the perspective of what would support the defendant's view?

[00:13:58] Speaker 01:
No, I'm asking what evidence is there that he encountered them somewhere other than at the border?

[00:14:05] Speaker 00:
Well, the defendant is saying they were found at the fence.

[00:14:09] Speaker 00:
I would respectfully submit that the evidence supports they were found north of the fence, and Mondragon testified when he arrived they were against the fence, but he didn't know where they were when he arrived.

[00:14:18] Speaker 00:
But one of the things that's important here too.

[00:14:20] Speaker 01:
But you didn't answer my question.

[00:14:22] Speaker 01:
I mean, what evidence is there that Laster did not see them from the point they arrived?

[00:14:28] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I would respectfully submit that that question is something this court said it doesn't look at.

[00:14:34] Speaker 00:
And if I can just explain why.

[00:14:35] Speaker 02:
But counsel, whether that's true or not, I would suggest you answer Judge Berzahn's question.

[00:14:42] Speaker 00:
Then can you repeat that question?

[00:14:44] Speaker 01:
I just want to make sure I have it right.

[00:14:45] Speaker 01:
What evidence is there?

[00:14:48] Speaker 01:
that Lastra, when he encountered them, was not at the border.

[00:14:55] Speaker 00:
Well, he must have been near the border, it sounds like.

[00:14:58] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:14:58] Speaker 00:
But we don't have direct evidence that he saw anybody cross.

[00:15:02] Speaker 01:
Exactly, exactly.

[00:15:03] Speaker 01:
But the burden is on the government.

[00:15:06] Speaker 01:
So what evidence is there that he didn't?

[00:15:08] Speaker 00:
But you don't need that, and that's what I wanted to do.

[00:15:10] Speaker 00:
Why?

[00:15:10] Speaker 00:
Because this court specifically addressed that in Castellanos Garcia.

[00:15:14] Speaker 00:
This court refused to reverse a 1326 found in crime in the absence of contrary evidence, and this gets to one of the other judges' points.

[00:15:25] Speaker 00:
The court said

[00:15:26] Speaker 00:
that contrary rule would be unworkable, even absurd, noting that the government need not prove how the defendant entered or, quote, bring in evidence that no government agent who might have been somewhere in the area of the route saw him and kept him under surveillance, end quote, that Castellanos have offered only, quote, free-floating speculation that he might have been observed the whole time.

[00:15:46] Speaker 00:
And that's what we have here.

[00:15:47] Speaker 00:
We have the defendant asking this question.

[00:15:49] Speaker 01:
But they were found a mile away.

[00:15:52] Speaker 00:
We don't know exactly where he was located when agent

[00:15:56] Speaker 01:
But in Castellanos, they were found.

[00:16:01] Speaker 00:
He didn't find the breach point.

[00:16:02] Speaker 00:
And that's important, too, Your Honor, because if you can't find the breach point nearby, then if the best case scenario is- That was very fuzzy testimony.

[00:16:10] Speaker 01:
He looked briefly.

[00:16:11] Speaker 01:
He didn't see it.

[00:16:12] Speaker 01:
That was about it.

[00:16:13] Speaker 01:
He wasn't walking around looking at it.

[00:16:15] Speaker 00:
But the totality of circumstances and the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdict in the view of the government.

[00:16:21] Speaker 00:
And that's where I also want to note

[00:16:24] Speaker 00:
The district court made a specific factual finding that the defendant knew the month before trial that the government was not going to call Agent Lostra.

[00:16:33] Speaker 00:
The defense could have called Agent Lostra.

[00:16:36] Speaker 00:
The defense argued to the jury, hey, the gov hasn't called Agent Lostra.

[00:16:39] Speaker 01:
What Mondragon said about how they came in, it's hard to tell how they came in.

[00:16:42] Speaker 01:
Typically, this is what Mondragon said about how they came in.

[00:16:46] Speaker 01:
It's hard to tell how they came in, but typically they will either cut a section of the fence or they will break open the door.

[00:16:52] Speaker 01:
But often then they'll close it up and sometimes they'll try to hide it from us so we can out-locate it and keep it going or it will be out in the open.

[00:16:59] Speaker 01:
And then, so right, did you look along the wall for the place where the people had entered?

[00:17:03] Speaker 01:
I probably did, and if I didn't report it, it's probably because I didn't find where the breach is.

[00:17:09] Speaker 01:
That's not, I mean, but he'd already testified that they often cover up the breach, so.

[00:17:14] Speaker 00:
Well, actually, I respectfully submit that that fact is actually important because if the argument is

[00:17:20] Speaker 00:
that Laster shows up and he sees him crossing, then the fact that there's no breach nearby suggests that they've traveled a ways before they were apprehended.

[00:17:29] Speaker 01:
And if I didn't report it, it's probably because I didn't find it where the breach was.

[00:17:33] Speaker 00:
But the jury's entitled to infer from that, that he didn't find a breach right there where he was, because the defendant's argument sort of depends on Agent Lostra being there and seeing them cross.

[00:17:43] Speaker 01:
Now again, he could have presented this evidence, the jury's... If we agree with this, aren't, if we allow this to be an adequate testimony, aren't we encouraging the government to do in every case what it did here, which is not have the

[00:17:55] Speaker 01:
the person testifying who actually knows what happened?

[00:17:58] Speaker 00:
No, you're not.

[00:17:59] Speaker 00:
Why not?

[00:17:59] Speaker 00:
Because you have multiple cases where evidence is presented by other, that you don't always have to present the first agent and that's what this court was talking about and what the district court found, that you don't have to always present how the person entered.

[00:18:12] Speaker 00:
You're also, this is a found in case.

[00:18:15] Speaker 02:
But also, isn't part of your argument what you said a couple of minutes ago, and I don't see that this goes to the standard of the evidence,

[00:18:24] Speaker 02:
But the defendant knew, so the defendant knew that the guy wasn't going to be testifying.

[00:18:30] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:18:31] Speaker 02:
And could have called him.

[00:18:31] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:18:32] Speaker 00:
And they actually made that argument to the jury.

[00:18:34] Speaker 00:
They said, hey, the gov hasn't called.

[00:18:35] Speaker 00:
You know, Lastra and the government responded, well, he has the powers of subpoena, even though it is a burden, and he could have presented them too.

[00:18:40] Speaker 00:
And the question is, do you have enough, knowing that Agent Mondragon couldn't see, said their cameras couldn't see that location.

[00:18:47] Speaker 00:
That is so important, because you can show lack of official restraint, not just by finding somebody north of the border, but by showing that they were not under constant continuous surveillance from entry to arrest.

[00:18:58] Speaker 02:
But also on this policy issue, if the government lets a defendant know they're not going to call somebody, the defendant is free

[00:19:05] Speaker 02:
to call them or seek a postponement to get a subpoena, right?

[00:19:08] Speaker 00:
Absolutely.

[00:19:09] Speaker 00:
They can.

[00:19:10] Speaker 00:
And that's the thing.

[00:19:12] Speaker 00:
The government chooses to prove its case.

[00:19:15] Speaker 00:
Sometimes they don't call every witness, and there could be reasons for that.

[00:19:19] Speaker 00:
But the question is what evidence was presented, and was it sufficient?

[00:19:23] Speaker 00:
And I would say that this court would have to overlook an awful lot of its cases in order to reverse.

[00:19:27] Speaker 00:
It would have to overlook Castellanos Garcia, Bello Bahena, Ramos Godines, Cruz Escoto,

[00:19:33] Speaker 03:
But Council, all we know for sure is that when the agent who testified, Mondragon, encountered them, they were standing at the border.

[00:19:45] Speaker 03:
What more do we know?

[00:19:48] Speaker 00:
We know that they were north of the border.

[00:19:50] Speaker 00:
We know that no cameras were able to see into that spot where they were located so that we know that the jury could reasonably conclude that there was no constant continuous surveillance from the time that they entered to the time that they were arrested and that is... But those are things that we don't know.

[00:20:04] Speaker 03:
What we know is they were at the border, standing at the border when Mondragon showed up and he was the one who testified to that.

[00:20:12] Speaker 00:
Yes, and we know more than that, though.

[00:20:14] Speaker 00:
We know about the fact that they can't see that the camera is in that location, and that's really critical.

[00:20:18] Speaker 00:
Sometimes there isn't that testimony.

[00:20:20] Speaker 00:
Sometimes it's unclear.

[00:20:22] Speaker 00:
But here we had an agent who's right there, 20 years border patrol agent, worked in the Ajo station for three years, talked about how there's nothing but desert out here, and it's a place where people cross who want to avoid being apprehended.

[00:20:34] Speaker 03:
Last year could have cleared up probably every ambiguity in this case, right?

[00:20:40] Speaker 00:
I don't know about every ambiguity and I don't think that let's pretend for the sake of argument that the government had called Agent Lastra and Agent Lastra

[00:20:49] Speaker 00:
at least said something about, oh, I found him north.

[00:20:52] Speaker 00:
There's nothing to suggest he wouldn't have said anything different than what Mondragon reported that he ran into.

[00:20:58] Speaker 00:
So there's so much of this free-floating speculation that in Hernandez Castellanos, this court refused to adopt, as well as in Bea Bahena.

[00:21:06] Speaker 00:
Because this court looks at what was presented.

[00:21:09] Speaker 00:
And it specifically said that the government does not have to sort of disprove, I see I'm in the red.

[00:21:15] Speaker 00:
Can I finish that thought?

[00:21:16] Speaker 02:
You can finish that sentence.

[00:21:17] Speaker 00:
You bet.

[00:21:18] Speaker 00:
That the government does not have to prove how the defendant entered or, quote, bring in evidence that no government agent who might have been somewhere in the area saw him and kept him under surveillance.

[00:21:29] Speaker 00:
We have two ways to prove it.

[00:21:30] Speaker 00:
We actually had them both, and either one would be OK.

[00:21:32] Speaker 00:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:21:33] Speaker 00:
Thank you, your honor.

[00:21:34] Speaker 00:
We'd ask the court to affirm.

[00:21:35] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:21:35] Speaker 02:
We'll give you two minutes for rebuttal.

[00:21:41] Speaker 04:
Just briefly, I think the concern about

[00:21:45] Speaker 04:
trying to show the absence of observation or continuous observation is that in a lot of cases you have people that are coming into the United States and they're trying to hide.

[00:22:01] Speaker 04:
They're trying to avoid Border Patrol agents.

[00:22:05] Speaker 04:
But I do invite the Court's attention to Mondragon's testimony where he said that he arrived and that all of these people were just standing around.

[00:22:15] Speaker 04:
They were not armed.

[00:22:16] Speaker 04:
They were not resisting.

[00:22:17] Speaker 04:
They were not trying to run.

[00:22:19] Speaker 04:
They weren't trying to hide.

[00:22:20] Speaker 04:
They were very cooperative.

[00:22:23] Speaker 04:
And he ends it by saying, I don't know how or when they entered the United States.

[00:22:30] Speaker 04:
So if the question or if the issue or the reason for having the continuous observation requirement is because,

[00:22:41] Speaker 04:
People are trying to enter the United States and not be seen and not be detained by border patrol.

[00:22:47] Speaker 04:
This certainly doesn't show that that's what happened in this instance.

[00:22:50] Speaker 04:
And for those reasons, I'd ask the court to reverse.

[00:22:53] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:22:53] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:22:54] Speaker 02:
We thank counsel for their arguments and the case just argued will be submitted.