a police officer that was imposed under three a one point to see one for the enhancement to apply there has to be conduct that created a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to the officer here there was a high speed chase but there were no injuries from that the injuries to the officers occurred during the post chase arrest the judge said the chase was the serious conduct and adopted the p s r s position about the handsome enhanced there i'm sorry i don't think that's correct if you have you don't have to be a know an athlete if you have two hundred pounds behind your plunge you can do a lot of harm i don't disagree your honor my point is only th of the two officers the one who received one of the punches when i said remember what the testers the test is is this sort of thing that could cause a serious injury yes and if a two hundred plus pounder some probability that could cause serious injury then then they get the enhancement you're out of the text says about the risk so yes i agree with that but i think that looking at what the district found is the problem here because there inconsistency is between what her findings were in the bases for the imposition of the enhancement she said that the scuffle did not result in any injuries and yet she imposed the p s morris but that's the distinction i'm trying to emphasize yes between i actual harm inflicted and potential yes and then i think the weight of the punch or is his scr all the judge said she didn't think though that the struggle warranted the six level enhanced met yet is an inconsistency between the decision to impose the enhancement in the reasoning behind that was that was part of her reasoning in essence that she thought the car chase was much worse and that i got two points then this is one of those oddities in the guidelines or she wound up saying look you have a six point supply and i'm going to take all this into account in under thirty five fifty three day and she winds up giving the guy what we have in the stand okereke in the reasoning was murky if not inconsistent altogether and that's why i'm trying to imagine what another judge might do if we sent it back to another judge and i don't think that would probably do mr carter a lot of good i don't want to encourage any imagination by judges in this topic but i will ask that the language of the enhancement in the reasoning of the judge be considered here that is the basis for the appeal i understand that things could have gone worse for mr carter but the enhancement was not in our view correctly applied in light of the reasoning given by the judge due to that inconsistency due to the inconsistent findings we think this case should be remanded pre sentencing thank you ok is that thank you very much court my name is matt necro be on behalf of the united states in this case the district court did you make the necessary findings to support the six level enhanced the court found that defendant carter punched the officers in the head during the arrest and that that conduct posed a substantial risk of serious bodily injury accordingly the judge correctly applied the enhancement after weighing all the evidence including the testimony of one of the arresting officers testimony  defendant's photographs of the officers injuries and audio recordings of the radio dispatch traffic surrounding the incident unless the court has any questions i believe