for the united states if i may reserve two minutes for rebuttal thank you the issue in this case is whether a violation of maine statute which punishes adequately assault and has as an element the use attempted use or threatened use of physical force against the person of another qualifies as an armed career criminal act violent felony with a permits a conviction based on an engine of recklessness ery clearly satisfies the force requirement of johnson one and no issue is whether the mens rea a requirement disqualifies it this issue has been the subject of many guidelines even if this circuit where there is a deep division the courts that have ruled against the united states have expressed extreme misgivings about the correctness of their ruling so this is an important issue  disfigurement of a function of a bad remember or in forgetting or extended convalescence to recuperate the second one is causing bodily injury with use of a dangerous weapon a bodily injury is defined by statute as physical pain or physical illness or impairment of physical condition comes very closely under the johnson one definition dangerous weapon by statute is defined as a firearm or we which in the manner it is used or threatened to be used is capable of producing death or serious bodily injury and then the faired is causing bodily injury under circumstances manifesting disregard for the severe consequences of the act significantly all three of those statutory definitions of the crime also rely on the statutory definition recklessness it's pretty long so i will summarize it in essence it requires a conscious disregard for the risk that the person is contact will cause it takes into account the attendant circumstances and which are and the purpose of the conduct and it a gross from the standard of conduct of any reasonable or prudent person that is a very needy definition of recklessness and the fact that it is a statutory definition of recklessness was of considerable federal statute does so what is the significance of the extra words in this statute if i'm hearing you right if they had deleted those words in his stance you the answer would be the s see or something well you know if you're asking me whether i think rising it applies to this case you know even though the language is different the language is different the language of the statute in issue in was se physical force period by a person in power in a domestic relationship so there was a correlation between the force and the person the army career criminal act requires you use attempted use or threatened me but i consciously disregarded the risk of whatever it might that that suggests if that's right that's thomas dissent in voicing very much one reason he may not have prevailed is because the ordinary language you might think that does seem to suggest is singling out or an identified target as opposed to just reckless conduct where someone may be heard but i don't know who would i don't intend any person to be hurt well they have in all the reckless use of force which has a conscious disregard for the risk that the person that will cause i see i am quickly running out of my time may i move on  we understand that there are reasons that rising could be minimised in this case but there are powerful reasons that was should apply in this case one e s simple assault which is the crime initially in one scene is legal lesser included offense of the same statutory crime of aggravated assault that isn't the issue here one is section two zero seven the other one is section two away the second is that neither of those statutes punishes accidental contact it all requires a deliberate act on the part of the perpetrator the furn is the policy considerations but the courts may be handy reference to the model penal code its definition of five states i've done as an informal summary there are at least twenty three states that define aggravated assault in the same way that name does or similarly the brand name does and under the model penal code so there is a danger that the same result would have would effect here because the final is judged fair and simply to point out commonsense that you have to use the active employment of a dangerous weapon and the dangerous weapon bringing us back to wriggle thing is something that points the element of force into what might be an otherwise overgrown crime so is the combination of the statutory language of the crime the on the fact that the court supreme court issued its holding based on two things one was a statutory tax secondly it looked at the context and the history of the state of mind twenty context that appears there now it's consistent with castle and it tells us that there is a misdemeanor specific definition of the use of force but not relying on of the inclusion in this statute as opposed to the other of the language against another i mean it's important i was listening to the call me the court had with the government i think that i'm not sure that was by accident i think bit against concern but that residual clause talks about a potential risk which if i'm understanding it that would seem like that would pick up a reckless thing it just happens that that clause is adult i think justice thomas and his dissent you know or z and i think well if there's a someone or they were working with morning and they are in their car and they give it you know from work that they say geez i just have to respond to this and they do it  across the country who would not have been able to prevent firearms from being in the hands of domestic abusers this is a different kettle of fish i might suggest this is the reason they were here is because this is a the brief break gave me an opportunity to think about your question george bearing and i thought a real quote which has to do with force does statute in the issue in leo sixteen which has the use fact that rudd seems so clearly focused on any stretch sell you pointed out the word use which has a very common understanding not common law understanding but a common understanding and there is no reason that congress would have intended that very simple very plainly understood word use to have one meaning in car one context and i know they were in another context i realize that context can say that it's a word that have more of a legal connotation if you answer your question about the model penal code it's almost its definition of recklessness it's very very close to me thank you thank you