because we could go back and you heard worse but the idea is and this is what judge were kicking mckeown struggle with he he's been a judge in about a for a long time and he and i fought it out for the last twenty all looking at what we know is a horse and then all of a sudden they seem to be telling us no really you guys want to count then then i think we need to look at it what did they really actually send and the problem we have here is is that the definitions now in eleven a warmth a forty three or overriding the actual structure of the statue of self because the statute itself is is in this it has its own structure and in let's step back and make this a little bit more understandable for everybody in the circuit i mean this this is a problem it really is because we've never stepped back and looked at the actual structure that these these particular definitions and what i think you know i think what you're saying it and i share that i share your concern is that when we all went to law school there was a pretty clear distinction between  unfortunately for whatever political reasons or whatever other reason congress had they have done what judge reimer has suggested that they're turning things into cows that aren't cows what they're doing it using terms that have very specific meaning to criminal lawyers and i don't know what we do with that i mean an end bank called doesn't really help solve the problem if congress has said you know by aggravated felony we mean we're equal poised between what we all understand the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor a felony you can get up to one year right and this is what just graver just said if you get up to one year it's misdemeanor and it doesn't qualify as a felony nor aggravated but also that's the bottom end of a felony thing one year or more so we have to i mean we have to find if we use the normal rules of statutory construction the congress actually intended to do that to des it comes back statute that part of the statute was never changed at all so they're then legislating within the framework and they're soon to know what that says another soon to know what the common law of stations and all the other circuits that decided t actual fact we just were talking to our panel attorneys which mr gives you litigated you have a case as one who do a lot more stuff in the state court and asking for that specifically just a boy this is a pragmatic thing but that still doesn't just do a unif structure because we have this problem with this and everybody has this problem with this and as i pointed out if it's at the equal poison it can't be playing it's ambiguous in this particular case and then there's not sufficient no this and this is what even like what congress has done to the traditional concept of what a felony in a misdemeanor is but not standing that term of our aggravated felony the statute rather than a one hundred forty three after clearly defines what from the house of representatives conference report number eight twenty eight talking about that the amendments one of the things that it was lowering the imprisonment threshold for crimes of fast violence racketeering and document fraud from fright five years to one year so i think it's clear that while congress may have been more apt it's calling these aggravated offenses they chose to use the word aggravated felonies mr rodriguez this was announced and presented to the the legislators was that we're lowering it so now the most the felonies will be included in this particular thing because mala more before because there was a five year sentence on the felonies required so they just pushed it back down to a felony cintas of one year not a misdemeanor since of one year i mean congress can tell us that they want to make misdemeanor spells or aggravated felony is clearly more clearly