it please the court i'm deep because short here representing the government in this case section twenty two fifty five motion is ordinarily the exclusive vehicle for federal prisoners to collaterally attack or convictions effect or ineffective to test the legality of his detention the most straightforward way for this court to result this case is to find a chase and cannot prevail under this circuit's existing standard for stating clause relief because he to pursue arguments that he could have made back when he filed his first collateral attack in two thousand and thirteen now the reasons why he could have done so are three fold motion mathis made it clear that disk camps which had been decided before treason filed his first twenty two fifty five motions provided the basis for the over breath argument that he made now aca burglary would have failed the question of foreclosure is not a subjective one it's not a reasonable person standard or you know a good lawyer standard it is a question of whether the plane was legally foreclosed as a matter of future cases that directly raise the question so in light of that principle he could have argued that if you like green and assumed without deciding that the current version of the statute has a contemporaneous a circuit case that interpreted the prior version of the minnesota statute to reach its conclusion that the current version is generic burglary for two reasons that conclusion challenge statutes that had previously been held to qualify as generic burglary under the means versus elements distinction articulated in the camp so you know wouldn't have necessarily for close any such argument and also the fact that he made that very argument in the context of challenging his conviction notwithstanding direct appeal that conclusion would not apply with equal force at the time you filed his initial twenty two fifty five motion because by then had been assuming that he was foreclosed at the time of his direct appeal in light of grants language that would not have been the case by the time he filed his first twenty two fifty five motion because the stamps had been decided by then by had not identified a single case decided in this court that would support his reading which is the reading that it clean that would have been impractical at the time that he filed hi first twenty two fifty five motion necessarily satisfies that this circuits for closure standard so his argument is basically that it would be impractical to charge his bitch challenges burglary convictions under was sick seeking that has never been the circuit standard in any case that we've been able to identify he has not identified any case that would support that sort of a theory and one consequence of allowing him to status as an arm career criminal because even if this one predicate does shouldn't qualify as a violent felony there are all these other ones that do and then simply sit back and wait and if the courts come to bootstrap numerous sort of unrelated litigation on claims that were that were there could have been challenging earlier proceedings in a twenty to forty one petition the the opportunity whether there is an adequate procedural opportunity to raise a certain claim not whether there is an opportunity to succeed on that clean or not absolutely not that there's any guarantee on such a clean and in light of in right of sort of that that principle the question really was the purpose of the state i a question is really whether there's any adequate opportunity to raise a clique now if there were adverse circuit precedent on all fours that squarely would have foreclose the claim then under the circuits precedent that would mean that the prisoner doesn't have things that are pending before the supreme court one is whether the clause categorically bars any clean based on an intervening supreme court decision of statutory interpretation that the court of appeals in that case we would ask that miss court hold a decision in this case pending supplemental briefing on whether coral's impacts the relief that she's a new seeking we don't believe that would delay the proceedings in this case in the sense that a decision in quarrels is except expected by the end of june so it wouldn't delay it too much fight at the very at the very minimum you had filed a twenty two fifty five on this issue i think it likely never would have made it past the rule for screening and that the district court does and even post johnson but  government especially told the eighth circuit this issue was foreclosed when mr chairs and filed an application to file the success of twenty two fifty five position petition based on johnson and the government  important that was about bailey which limited application of one twenty four c and the court and devonport explained that bailey was not neutral and in fact it was an open question among the circuits but its essentially looked at even just broad terms of the statute sort of like in the case and you can't just went to shepherd documents and found all the facts about the case post a camps where you have any statutory alternatives whether means  elements and they were very explicit about that and you still go back to the shepherd aku thing you still figure out whether the person committed the predicate tape offense so post a camps you still have the problem of the residual cause you still have the problem  class and i do want to touch a little bit on why this court should not hold this space for quarrels or even if the supreme court except real or justice judge scott or w prison while that gets sorted out now you know if we were in a situation where this is a completely unsettled issue in the circuit it would be a different matter and i know that i even have a case and there's a couple of cases that address an issue in hayman and which is another case in the supreme court about the application of apprentice you to the supervised release violations and everybody agrees that should be put on hold this court has never talked about that but work work and preserve it was settled it does not make sense this case for these other cases where the government is absolutely capable of filing a cert titian and so in the end if mr she is and is released under this court's mandate i mean i have to have a conversation with my client and i've done it in the past and you can be released under me and it if the supreme court reverses the government's going to get that time out of you they've lost nothing it's remediable on the other hand if he remains in prison not only while we wait for quarreling but while we potentially if quarrels changes a lot will we come back here and talk about what is the effect of the sort of perjury because it's not clear from the position or if it's real or which potentially wouldn't be heard until sometime in the fall if they were to take that up that's something we can't remedy that time and mr chisholm's life is one of those expediently rare cases you don't see that sort of clear precedent for the most part and you don't see the sort of clear avenue for relief at this time that has only just become generic burglary under taylor it's always been a residual clause so essentially the court was right back i had a chance and claim or he had nothing and when he failed to prosecute his appeal  claim in a twenty to fifty five what happens as he did what happened in polk and camacho of these other cases as he tries to use twenty to forty one in appropriately as a vehicle to shoe horn and a claim that doesn't belong there that is not what's happening here is precisely the circumstance that this circuit has is appropriate for twenty to forty one really