statute is not we don't believe that by a felony requiring quote force capable of causing physical pain or injury to the person as our supreme court now requires it to do with respect  jury decision that that is not retroactive i'm sorry josh johnson twenty ten isn't something that independently would support this petition it has to be johnson twenty twenty fifty correct and if it's a johnson twenty fifteen and it's and we are not allowed anymore to look at the residual clause then i guess we all agree we're looking at the elements exclusive the judge and our through there is a decision that should try was granted it's called stalking us out of florida and the reason i certainly did not submit a supplemental authority because it it has been decided number one so it's not technically a forty but for whatever it's worth it's a part of the supreme court has to do without a parallel floor robbery situation in florida where the degree of force i think is even lighter than what we have and although i did i'm not going to say pain myself but surely consider whether ought to be submitting that to you i didn't think was appropriate because it wouldn't it should not have affected the court's decision with respect to our particular issue which involves a simple robbery statue so it will more than your honour's did ask us to conduct that we would all recognize is force you know somebody punches you in the face of a you know what every day they shoot you down to the offensive touching where they they poke you in the hand at you don't like to be called by the people so i mean that's not the worst but what we know is that it's got to be something that and poses some kind of physical discomfort or pain but the question is how low do you go i mean it's not just  simple offensive touching and the other cords you know and even our court has has not established a very high bar for the definition physical force correct your honor and this court's analysis will  pre johnson twenty times precursors johnson therefore as the district court stated in this memorandum opinion it's to quote it's difficult to see how a less rigorous analysis survives court is just twenty twelve when all of the analysis for instance judge i'm sorry  discipline with with out the context of what the supreme court now requires a violent force was not the case and that is all fundamentally why i'm here today those will shields shields those it is a problem for you right i mean i would ask that and therefore qualifies the robbery statute as sufficient just on the basis of its own language i would ask the court to reconsider that i'm not saying that we are offering that i'm saying if it may be inferred that that's why  when he said that  relevant part out to only robert convictions the residual plus a delegation of twenty fifteen gave us the ticket to come back to the courthouse where you wouldn't have any reason to argue against those predicates as long as  uncertainty in it on this timeliness issue when you look at our panel opinion and stanley and then this is the opinion that is being canning case that the judge is reference i i i myself wonder whether point two different directions on the on the timing this and the answer to the timeliness question well i i think that the time of this is based upon the invalidation of john of the residual clause as came down to twenty fifteen agreement the plea agreement that right court answer was just about residual cause and effect there was direction three robberies judge one was neither considered because there was some problems with what they represent only eighty five robbery i'm not sure you're right on the six robbery but they put it but there's nothing there there is no roman numeral last section to that to denote what that this and i could tell you from if you if it's in the records i'm not i'm not going to strenuously out of the record here where reserve my time to second judge without being on the note it's residual are elements class it could have been a typo but the fact of the matter is it's still as a result of a johnson twenty fifteen has to qualify the a c c a simple robbery does not is is not and consistent and in my judgment is foreclosed by this court's precedent in shields as well as in myriad of other cases that not only those cases dealing with states other than illinois but containing the same reasoning and in particular shields as we discussed those cases did not rely on the additional elements of aggravated robbery to find that right i mean your argument is that the forced part at least is the same inch between this case and and the statute and shields correct and after careful analysis court expressly stated that the additional aggravated elements gave additional reasons for finding four cents and really never took the position at all that they were relying on that on the aggravated elements alone or even in combination in determining that the robbery that aggravated robbery qualified as a crime of violence so what do you think something has to be mean obviously this report is has not censured this they may have thought they solve in in samuel johnson or johnson twenty thirteen but now here we are going through the fifty states a district of columbia in the virgin islands through every statute that has ever been passed in the criminals fear and trying to decide which ones have violence in them which is a lengthy process at best and if silence just means you know ripping a necklace off somebody next so they maybe they have a penchant for a minute when the necklace chain breaks you that that's one thing if it's force in the sense of physics then it's everything if it's something a little bit more you know intuitive than we have a higher bar in these are all significant sentencing measures that's true your honor and it is difficult for all of us and has been for some time and will be for some time in the future but in this case it's a little easier than it has been in other cases because of for the required level as well as we've been target i'm not sure curtis johnson and slow as we've said that we certainly have cases post cards johnson that do not establish a particularly high bar that's right but but i mean johnson itself did a low bar and you know whether there's a distinction to be made between a slap on the on the face and a a scrape on the knack when a chain is ripped off the victim's knack which was was the the exact back pattern and jennings and ross so it's also a fact pattern and early at an early case involving the illinois statute taylor so it it seems it's it's true the supreme court could one day decide that what we meant was the slap on the face was the the minimum but that's not the way that the language of that case reads really the point is there's a low bar and it definitely does not include offensive touching and the illinois statute as to decide a case on both grounds because that would be helpful but with respect to the timing issue it it is a little calmer more complicated in this case than it was in stanley for the following reason there is there is that benefit of the defendant that does complicate things a little bit in this case however this case is a little bit different it's also different because curtis johnson is samuel johnson no i'm sorry curtis johnson was decided before this case you know a number of the cases that have come before the court have involved old cases that predated both johnson's and what the defendant failed to do was do anything after curtis johnson and then you know it was up at the time of samuel johnson right so why can't he why isn't he then entitled after samuel johnson to say the residual clause is gone we all understand that we paid the price you know as you well remember of last year and now we have to just say just this particular predicate offense one that has an element the use of violence and now we have to understand the use of violence to mean what the supreme court says it means i think that i think the answer to that is that this is this is we are in the world of collateral review here and there there are am but the supreme court made samuel johnson applicable to cases on collateral review that's true but that's not it didn't say but but when you're interpret in the case it's properly before you want collateral were if you use an outdated definition of statute well the thing i didn't say that the quote i think the question is there is or that the answer is there's a distinction between a an assessment of whether the defendant has met the record to statutory requirements to proceed on collateral review here on one hand that is to be here to have the court consider his case and on the other hand what should happen if it did if the court determines that he's entitled to be here and he's entitled to relieve which it happened then when the court reconsiders and reshuffles his his sentence why would the normal rule that you apply the law as it is time even for cases under rector view  apply because it sounds like you're saying that maybe the case gets before the court but then when the court looks at the predicate offense it can't it has to pretend that curtis johnson was never decided and it has to ask whether there's a whether force is an element without the benefit of curtis johnson it's not pretending that curtis johnson has not been decided and then we have this case and we just we don't dismiss it on time and it's grounds because it's so there's no more residual clause and i the defendant contended there was no element with the right kind of force well you had no incentive to do that when the residual clause was in force i mean that's true and it's a practical argument and i  don't i don't want to you know express a lack of understanding about this it isn't this exchange that isn't this stanley would point you in the direction that it's untimely that can and would point you in the direction that it's timely that that might be true i have to say that i'm collateral review setting that deserve recognition and respect they serve their important societal purposes and so just taking a generally a practical approach to it is not really the appropriate way to go and so i think stanley in that sense got it right but even if we take a practical approach or we take any approach that allows the defendant to pursue this claim now the answer to raises the use of force level to the degree of use of force the edit elements are directly pertaining to the degree of force judge it aspires to be concerned about offensive touching the pad case tells us that you know there are cases where only supreme