hundred and thirty one with not thirty one the possession element is the st element listed in the statute followed by the felony element followed further by the cross reference to sixteen  court had consistently held that a crime status as a crime of violence is a question of law for the court not a factual question for the jury congress no doubt that that night that he won the knowledge of that the defendant prevented the government from offering any evidence to support the elam is that now the evidence that the defense now says is lacking that was a strategic choice counsel made they didn't have to stipulate to this does not require the defendant this it simply gives the defendant an option having elected that option the defense should not now be able to come into court and complain that the government failed to offer proof that his affirmative litigated conduct prevented the government's a vote we disagree with applying v generic rule twenty nine argument to this specific fact pattern the cases do say that in generic a rule twenty nine motion with no argument preserves all issues regardless of whether that's a good rule or not i can see the argument and i think your honor is right to point out that that whatever that may be whatever the merits of that argue may be for the state of the law at the time of trial it's something else to say that somehow that preserves an issue that's decided is a question of law is decided six years later seven years later because nobody at the time of trial is even thinking that that's an issue so the whole rationale for the rule twenty nine motion kind of as preserving all issues it should preserve all issues that are viable and why not issues that have been like that that have no legal basis and then only come to become apparent in the future so there is an argument for why that there should be whole is not all that is there well reviewing the record as a whole i would point you it's not in the excerpts because i probably should have put it in but i didn't but i would point you to the on the probable cause statement for the felony harassment which is that the felony harassment was his threat to kill his former girlfriend and by the way that's also evident just from the judgment is that because the only excites the statute and the only thing that elevates relevance this case t elbow misdemeanor harassment two felony harassment is the threat to kill so by definition by pleading guilty to that crime and being convicted of that crime if it had to know that he had threatened to kill his ex girlfriend and in fact that's evidence from the p s r and other evidence in the record so to the extent of court is prepared to go outside the four corners of the trial record there is sufficient evidence from which you could find the defendant knew that he threatened to kill his girlfriend whether that would be sufficient to show that he knew that this was a crime of violence as opposed with the pentagon what the court views as necessary to satisfy that element if a defendant actually has to know it meet the legal definition of a crime of violence which i think if you accept the defendant's instruction the statute that's kind of what has to be proven i don't think that the bennett knew that because this is what he's i understand it's not he's claiming but texturally his argument has no  statute doesn't say the defendant has assumed that the knowledge element goes beyond a felony doesn't stay the defendant has to know that the felony for a lay person would understand that term yes or no that felony is a crime of violence as the i did subsection best force at the layperson would understand that term i'm not so sure that's true again that's and that's sort of the problem with trying to incorporate the legal definition of a crime of violence as an element were simply legal determinations about whether various crimes are in hands and of course the court has on every occasion of course follow this court's orders and has calculated the guidelines accordingly but as the court has made clear every day the judge as he says the guidelines are a guide and so they're not the go or the court well knew what the guidelines were he also full well knew given his history with his case and mr doors history  accurately kept capturing what would be a just sentence and of course very awkward of course permitted to do that and i again the court has twice made clear that it thinks that this is the appropriate sentence for this defendant and the record bears that out i don't think it's a fair characterization