condit you're back you didn't have to be excused but you will be after this one all right i'm sorry next case is united states the a pair my saying that correctly a pair alright united states the eight specifically categorizes that part of a female's body is by definition sexual contact so i don't i don't i don't understand how you can tell you can par it is if it is emmett it is that that's what the stand to criminalize that's what he got convicted of was sexual battery because he had contact with minors intimate parts and i'm saying well if you transpose what intimate farts consists of well it happens to be the same laundry list that falls under the federal statutory definition of and is the governing authority then the court can go to the record documents sack correct i mean doesn't this just come down to where where where we are is it is mccutcheon so good law or did bennett change things but if but but i'm not to ban it yet i'm just saying let's say we only have a catch and then was it permissible to look at the records and if you look at the records applied under twenty to fifty to a beach to the elements of the stake statue must only relate to the generic crime to trigger the enhancement and don't we have that at least think you're reading from page two hundred thirteen twenty one and before the panel invented it gets into looking at the record documents saying just as you indicated that that that requires we start with the categorical approach even if we did not end there consequently we first ask whether the prior conviction the language of the park indiction categorically triggers the enhanced that if not the defense will win but fortunately for the government that if this is not an arm or criminal act this is brother twenty two fifty two eighty two and the pertinent language is relates to when congress imposed a ten year minimum sentence for a defendant just like this one who had previously been convicted of two sexual offenses against two little girls and then he comes to wyoming and he's found possessing over one hundred images of child pornography could you give us your understanding of how found out fits in here and in particular given our decision in that case why didn't the district court care when it looked at the documents underlying the conviction under an indivisible statute so i think with judge gabrielle when he was faced with this decision and still think he recognized the potential conflict event and there is a then the court throws down it just back right now that on page thirteen twenty one it walks out because we start with the categorical approach that we need not in there we can then move to the modified categorical approach we have to shepherd documents and then it talks about th when the this court mean the words must be divisible and then citing the camp correct it means something different than what the camp said was divisible even though that even though it's tied into ca i would say i was a yes your honor and the reason for that would be as is when you read the entirety of bennett with the kutch so when you go back into touch and it was this case on all fours it was a defendant who was previously convicted of candace battery understand the connection piece of this i'm just wondering why bennett didn't didn't check is are you saying that this passage that we've been looking at is that the yes i believe it is i believe it's either dicta or  it refers to what comes before it was judge bacharach said when it talks about when we apply the categorical approach we need not end there if you go to the next paragraph the last paragraph on page thirty one e it cites categorically this case we have a defendant that you fired from the actions the intentional nonconsensual touching and intimate part of anybody and intimate parts are defined as genital area growing the but it goes without let me back up the ninth circuit and scenario and sullivan the government thinks has it best and that is sexual abuse is a commonsense  determination of what a sexual abuse need it relates to and so we go through all the steps one hundred fifty to eighty two said it has to be a state conviction that relates to sexual abuse but it's still it's still a categor analysis like i understand you're making two different career arguments but but on the categorical analysis even if it is related to georgia supreme court has put a broad gloss on the statute and why and i mean you start out by saying well if this were an a c c a case you'd lose and i sumit that's because under the categor i'm just talking about how we conceive of the categorical approach that if the if the underlying if the statute of conviction can include can include conduct  that goes beyond what the what the crime of conviction with cover then it's not categorically going to support the senate so i mean isn't that just kind of and the government would answer the court's question sites in the scenario of the case in the soul and that is categorical approach it is first of all we have to define what is sexual at the so if we define sexual abuse under twenty to forty two one of the federal statute then the government would lose because that's a whole different ball of wax but the courts have routinely said that it's not equivalency relates to doesn't mean the state statute has to be equivalent to twenty two forty two of us in this room know what section actually is so when we talk about a battle which is a not intentional touching of another person and it's done in a sexual area so as such as some of these general areas there but you know the can that was not therefore we can look at the underlying sheffer document to see whether it was an adult or a child and so when that happened this court said no we're not determine what the actual crime if you look at the underlying documents you figure out with the crime is based on the elements that are actually charged and then you go back to doing a categorical analysis but it seems like mccutcheon is taking you straight into the documents and just deciding based on the facts of the case whether there was sexual abuse i mean maybe i'm just making a technical point but i'm wondering if putting that label on it is  to sexual abuse and in doing so the government again reliance on areas and sullivan out of the ninth circuit and that is a common sense everyday for definition of what is sexual abuse me because in twenty two fifty two a b to congress never limited it to a felony offense it previously said up earlier in the statute any conviction under one of the time of the enhancement specifically to a twenty to a federal offense under the statutes for under twenty to forty and he didn't do that so i recognize it relates to we can't take it way off the farm so to speak but we're not asking to do that here this is the ninth circuit said the comm what is the view it's about if you touch somebody against their will and intentional in their genitalia in there but in places like that that's an abuse in that section and as the court mccutcheon said and i think it's