have to tell you that these cases get randomly assigned by order but it turned out that the random assignment here is good because the last council just set up the argument on some of your same issues so you may proce thinking there was a method to the order actually i would like to say there was so good morning my name is peter wolf i represent mr j in this matter this case presents a number of issues but what i think i want to start given ten minutes with the question of the continued five delivery of object robbery as a predicate crime of violence for the spec to nine twenty four c conviction and so i think the first point is say that the void for vagueness analysis didn't apply to advisory guidelines because they didn't define the crime or set the minimum punishment in fact in one twenty four c the residual clause has just that affected both defines the crime and it also sets the minimum punishment and so the application of the johnson analysis to the nine twenty four c residual clause seems to be to result in a conclusion that the residual clause is no longer viable than one twenty four c which then we have to overrule self a to get to your point i think so right well and you know that you can argue all you want and we can be t receptive but no can do you know that a three judge panel can overrule something as clear as u s p self and we've had a couple of other panels that also endorsed it recently so isn't your argument for the i'm for potential in bank court really rather than to us so i think in terms of the recent decisions which are on published and in one case at least seems like the argument that  making here wasn't even made in the court noted that a foot no i think the the paradigm for how to proceed is really set forth by this court's decision and banally because now he over rule as a three judge panel the previous decision that it held that voluntary manslaughter is a crime of violence and it did so in light of subsequent supreme court precedent that undermined the reasoning of it and so i think what we have here what i think is the key case and the place where self went wrong in not anticipating it and all the other decisions have gone wrong is not taking account of what moncrief the holder says is the correct way to do categorical analysis and in the correct way to do categorical analysis according to moncrief is to examine the minimal conduct that will suffice for a conviction and what i think the  panels of this circuit have done is they have examined the language and they have basically said well intimidation is enough for a conviction and intimidation carries for what the forest clause requires which is the threat of violent physical force likely to result in some injury or or pain or something like that and so if you actually and we know that that minimal force isn't anything because of the cases that a fall itself and here this court has basically said that it'll examine zach robbery and bank robbery the same so the precedent seemed to stand for each other and so you have a situation where a politely stated or anyway just stated demand for money without any explicit threat or implicit threat or any conduct that carried an obvious threat is sufficient for a conviction and if that's the case then and it is the case then it is also the case that that's not a forced clause match because it's over inclusive so let me also just clarify if we're that i mean the maya i think is this circuit's precedent which suggests to me even though as the context of sixteen be that the force clause or the residual clause under not twenty four c is no longer viable so if you follow the maya as circuit precedent then i think it to lead to the result i'm indicating but if you wait for it to my the mio if it comes out that somehow the sixteen b s ryssdal cause is not void for vagueness still doesn't answer this question so in that sense if that's in your back to self a right but but we're we're back to self as to whether self or really requires something for conviction that constitutes a match for the force cause analysis is required and so then i'm back to what i said before which is moncrieff talks about minimal it's not that it's that it's that in analyzing in the categoric on alice's you have to look at what is the minimal conduct that will suffice for a conviction and when and so it's not just some theoretical proposition but what actually will result and then what the minimal contact is is you see it would be if i knew someone came and said would you please hand over your wallet right that would be a not that would be but would be for or intimidation that under this circus precedent that would be enough for intimidation because you don't even actually have to be in to fix self approves that you know and all those bank robbery cases say that that follows self and mendez basically says that self applies to object robbery so right so self is the key problematic precedent for my argument here but if you look at what this court has done in other cases  what the supreme court said so in johnson the johnson case decided twenty ten the court said that the force clause requires physical force and does not capture intellectual force or emotional force and this circus precedence since you could just say hand over your money that without anything else and that's enough to convict you of robbery i suggest that that means that you can establish intimidation which is all that's required for a conviction with some sort of inference of intellectual force or emotional force and we know that's true because it least in some of the bank robbery cases and i think your are relying on hopkins  the actual teller didn't even have to be intimidated it's just if some reasonable person might have been intimidated that was enough for a conviction of kelso unfortunately for you selfie was published but i'm i case of us vs howard where we could follow the reasoning in that case we're not bound by it this court held any us versus howard now that hobbs act robbery constitutes a crime of violence under section four two four c three eg because one it involves the threatened use of force and even when a involves putting someone in fear of injury because we know minimal nonviolent forceful suffice for a conviction of what this court has analyzed for example massachusetts robbery in the parnell case the court concluded that it wasn't a forced clause machon said that doesn't count as a crime of violence and really no more force than was required by the massachusetts law or no is required for a conviction of either object robbery or bank robbery under this court's precedent so you're kind of in the situation i would say were over twenty or thirty years the panels of the ninth circuit have at the government's  the court said well that can't be a force close match at least when analyzing the massachusetts statute so that's the kind of conundrum that we have here and and you know just because i should say this but it seems to me it's also self inflicted wound not by this court of by the government because over all these years they kept urging this court of this court basically follow them to allow a conviction to be sustained in terms of sufficiency evidence unless unless evidence may place the court in mourning again your honor still talking for the united states i'll start were defense counsel left off in terms of clearly asking the court to overturn the longstanding precedent of this court and self and he points to banally as an example where he thinks that a three judge panel has overturned prior three judge panel holdings and benelli however they case that was overturned was from  it doesn't have the same sort of robust consistent litigation that we've seen on this topic in the circuit and and has been held recently we've had  old so if it is old your honor but we have four opinions within the the last year i think confirming and affirming the rulings in sulfa but i think to get to his point  it would be that you would have to using mon crieff which was in two thousand and thirteen i believe that that is interceding law that wasn't appropriately considered and applied by other pounds and therefore we would have this flexibility so your response to that in order to move this argument along would be helpful yes your honor that the question of what is the minimal conduct that is sufficient for circuit is i think much more stringent than what counsel would have the court believe if you look at the howard case itself the hard case talks about how and and is defined by it's defined as instilling fear injury that's it and the howard opinion at four sixty eight is it's not a situation as counsel would have you believe where it's somebody shows up in a commercial establishment and says can i take you can you give me your money and leaves it's not that that there is no case law in the circuit that supports that argument and in fact the plain language of the hub's act robbery statute is clearly different from that the crimes that of the hobbs act robbery statute talks about taking personal property from the person or in the presence of another against his will by means of actual or threatened force or the bottom line to answer your question your honor is that the minimal conduct that is sufficient in the circuit court's case law is not what counsel says it is and ultimately we don't affirmed focusing only on force clause and not relying on anything else ultimately are the defense's attempt to get this court to overturn longstanding precedent are helpful here in terms of saying that moncrief changes prior interpretations of the applications of the statute or that it doesn't not that i've seen your honor and  and i thought it was completely opposite and so your honour's the reality is is that although it's a creative argument it's not within the realms of either the circuits precedent or the language of the hobbes act robbery statute and for that reason tell the same thing so if sending a demand note in the context of kidnapping isn't a forced close match it strikes me that asking someone for money without an explicit threat of violence or using actual violence which you don't have to do to be convicted of this circus precedent is equally instructive and i think leads to the result i've urged the court to adopt you have many cases from other circuits that have gone t and changed course no but here's the thing about other circuits other circuits have not defined bank robbery and hobbs act robbery to such a minimal extent as the night circuit has quite  united states versus o back as submitted on the briefs and the last case for you had this morning is united states versus l c don't