issues first whether a district court must provide clear indication on the record that it has accepted a defendant's guilty plea taken by a magistrate judge and second whether california robbery is overbroad given recent intervening authority there must be some clear indication on the record to bar language from the eighth circuit that a district court has accepted a defendant's guilty plea to accept the government's position that the final judgment and commitment is enough would lead to the somewhat absurd result that the defendant could withdraw his guilty plea right up until the end of the sentencing hearing from the let's assume that it's error but that being the case you still have to show more right and  had a lawyer there that i'm assuming was not a potted plant and there wasn't any objection right and everything went forward and everyone there's certainly every indication and there was never any occasional i want to withdraw my player there was never any note objection to anything so how did that really affect the rights in the proceedings first of all your honor i believe this is structural error because it's notes case for that well nature provides a standard for structural error and states that any error that deprives the defendant of basic protections without which the criminal trial cannot reliably serve it's function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence is a structural error and there was focused on a very very narrow number of cases where the judge was five where the jury couldn't be impartial and everything else it's and was and in fact the district court in that case interestingly didn't believe that it had implicitly accepted and again i would just point to the fact that under rule eleven d one a defendant has an absolute right to withdraw a plea for any reason or no reason  right up and before the plea is accepted what the rule says before the court accepts the plain defendant can withdraw for any reason or no reason so that is that it began here the courts is there anything else is there anything else you want to say and there was there was no response so the defendant hear it and didn't withdraw that's right ellie again i would just go back to the nader standard because this is itself the determination of  i believe it fits the nater standard it's not simply a basic protection to assure that the trial serves its as its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt it is the determination  even even not giving the jury one of the elements of the offense can be harmless error i mean here the defendant had his rights just as rights voluntarily waived them the district court he there was also has some due process underpinnings and those due process underpinnings are implicated in a district courts in article three district courts assurance that a felony guilty plea was voluntary intelligent so at the end of the day all we're asking is that you know we don't want i don't think any party here wants that once just a course to get too sloppy here further because of the constitutional implications the jurisdictional implications and because of the practical implications in terms of when i have a question about for sara lopez held that a conviction under section two eleven was inherently either the equivalent of the generic crime of robbery or the or of extortion both of which are generic federal offense when you can use the modify cowgirl approach because it's divisible they never looked at whether a offense is could be categorically crime of of violence two it was just addressing a different issue so i would disagree with your premise i think you began by saying that besser lopez determined that two eleven was indivisible and actually better lopez came before de comp so there was no we didn't have the benefit now that we have been citing it since it's not there had i guess and it's not effectively overruled so it means something well there hasn't been a published case of holding bets for a lopez post a comp and if i could just explain a little bit about how you want to have a light right that's why i don't think you're probably asking us to have one but i would like to do if i could as it just explain how the indivisibility analysis that they comp that means is that because jurors don't have to agree that a defendant either used fear of injury against a person or the person or fear of injury against property that means that  there doesn't need to be that unanimity so in other words if i could put a little more concretely in the plea context when a defendant admits to the force or fear element of two eleven he's admitting to the whole global indivisible element of force and and fear so what that means that he's admitting both that he used fear of injury against a person and that he used fear of injury against property so if there were some kind of hybrid the mishmash you're talking about no because the commentary goes on to enumerate particular generic offenses and every decision interpreting crime of violence looks to that numerated list and that list tells us that we don't have that mishmash we have two distinct separate smaller offenses a generic robbery and generic extortion and we know from besser lopez that two eleven is broader than generic robbery because of the property component and we know from  that two eleven is broader than generic extortion because of the person component and we know from math the that the inquiry has to stop there you cannot go on to look at we're not going to do the modified categorical approach but if each of those is a crime of violence then but if i could just quickly respond to that and say that i think we're better a lopez went wrong under now in light of day comp and math has is that it took out the property it pulled apart that alternative means it took out the property component and then it applied extortion just to that and we know now under the company mathis that you can't do that you have to look at the whole and looking at the whole they just it just doesn't fit categorically into either of the two i think please the court benjamin holly for the united states beginning with the first issue apparently the remedy that the defense is seeking or would be would be acceptable to them is simply to remand to the district court who could then new pro to accept the the fact that that solution would be so straightforward so simple implies that the problem is not one that is structural that nader would find goes to the the heart of the the system affects fairness or judicial integrity and that's why the rule eleven when it's talking about here would be looking at the plane prong number two and substantial rights on number three in terms of the second issue dealing with robbery it sounds like the court understands our position so it must or has any questions we'd be willing to submit it argument and with this matter will st