precisely what is it that prohibits us from looking to that minute order because first of all the trial court did not make any factual finding as to the age of the victim dillo why isn't this part of the judgment judgment clerk is ordered to prepare an amended abstract of judgment so then we if we take a look at the entire judgment we find in so isn't that part of the final judgment ordered to prepare an amended abstract wasn't clear about that it's in a minute order but the minute order amends the judgment clearly i read it that's correct your honor is there and let me ask you in another way is there any good reason in the world why we shouldn't be able to rely on that don't tell me that the supreme court said these words in the context of that case you know as a matter of policy you sounded ministration well if it was part of the judgment then i would submit that  the court me considered that if there was any other document you would summit that court may not consider moving on to the second point even if the court work to  consider this judgment and consider the victim's age we would argue that this crime did not necessarily  statute covers any sexual penetration however slight with the person under the age of eighteen and in in doing so  that's argued by the briefs it appears that that section covers consensual sexual penetration because there are other subsections that deal with non consensual henschel for a physical injury if he was a minor penetration with consent of the victim well that's the definition of physical injury i mean if you take a look at the grand boy case it concludes that crimes involving the sexual abuse of a minor are for say crimes of violence why aren't we dealing with a similar situation here that's correct around and that case  very it's wrong it's wrong that's that's irrelevant though i mean it may be for a new case but isn't the law of the circuit right down that crimes involving the sexual abuse of a minor are per to quote their cases we do not need to draw any bright line here with regard to age or range of conduct because the alaska sexual abuse that contains an additional element that bears upon our analysis and it went on this case we have a fifteen or fourteen year old victim and we don't know what the extent of the tradition is we don't know what actually occurred only over twenty five this court in grand voice that it needs this court need not determine whether that would in fact involve a serious risk of injury because sexual abuse of a minor is per se a crime of violence under to a one point two in the same definition applie wrong a fourteen year old can violate the statute by any kind of penetration with the seventeen year old so you can have a fourteen year old assuming that you can get a fourteen year old in some kind of court setting is that a major difference a material difference the crazy cases that we're seeing now with teachers and young kids i mean philly could have been convicted of this with whatever an english term bar i mean i think there's two responses to it first of all is  and so in that particular case it could have been a very lively i think this court can look at the minute order in this case of the term and there's no juvenile educational limited order anywhere represented and therefore there was no the kind it was not a juvenile in this case in that case i mean i think the fact the victim would have been charged with allowing herself to be penetrated well presumably if this defendant asserts it was a consensual act between for example a seventeen year old and a sixteen year old if they would have both in that circumstance violated the statu cases i do agree that other cases have involved it at least my looking at the stats you have involved necessarily someone that is older the right over offenders and younger victims and here it could be the other way around and shepherd did indicate that although it did listen judgement in the documents you could look at it it's the other terrible judicial document you know it's a little bit interesting to me as we've got a minute order that directs the judge or excuse me direct the judgment clerk to prepare an amended abstract of judgment do we have the amended abstract judgment itself in our record we don't have anything besides the letter and why don't we have the amended abstract of judgment why are we left with a minute order and how do we know if this ever government had no documents on the police report which will never then marcos that we have no interest as we have noted repeatedly the government has the burden to establish clearly and unequivocally the condition was based on all the elements of a qualifying predicate offense indeed we have explained that the documents used to satisfy the documents used to satisfy and modify chemical across much must meet a rigorous standard and african judgement is not the judgment of conviction and does not control is different the trial court's oral judgement