on the the issue regarding the ny twenty four c count that mr walker was convicted of it's our position in this matter that the hobbs act robbery which brief case law is squarely against me i mean the issue exactly wrong and i do think that this is the argument that i see developing and it's taken me time to really as you look at this you look at these cases across the goes that if we think the act and it can be committed against property then is that a crime of violence against a person that would trigger the enhancement and argument is squarely know i think we have to look at the issue that if that individual is charged in this with this crime hobbs act robbery and a jury is given an instruction and a say in this type of fact pattern which is not outlandish that if someone's property is threatened which defeats their will to have them turn over money or whatever to them then that would substantiate a robbery now you know hobbs act robberies and you know and you know  how exactly robbery that isn't somebody walks into a store and sends if you don't give me the money in the cash register i shall think less of you that's right you know i mean there isn't a there's an implied that is photos of my children things that are really valuable to me and then someone said i'll destroy that unless you comply and that breaks your will and you turn over what you need to turn over to them i was reading an article in this is you know  sort of future but and wired magazine where an individual who who studies electronic issues he was hacked on purpose by you know professional hackers because he kept all his information in the cloud and he described the injury that it caused him because he can't replace any of those pictures and information that he had there so i do think this is something that we're going to have to get our heads around and it's perhaps that this statute you know mr walker did not have to be prosecuted federally you know new york state has robbery statutes you know he's a you know by my calculation you can say of violent predicate every three and a half to fifteen years a mechanism which to address the issue and hobbs that robbery i think was designed in a day and age where they were thinking about more about organized crime things that are just and criminal defense counsel would have to decide which which is a good case to use as a vehicle for that but let me ask you this could you turn your attention to the identification of your client by the parole officer we set forward that you know here's a person who's but who submitted a violation a supervised release report who has a stake in in the process against mr walker so you don't have the full ability to cross examine this individual also it seems as we looked at the record of the case it seems highly unnecessary the summation the government summation as they talk about the video of the arguments being made you could see mr walker you could see his gait there's it's clear it's not five k clarity but it's all there so the jury can see his gait or and think that they're not necessarily and see the gate on the video but they're not necessarily sufficiently familiar with with mr walker to know what his opportunity observe him under and a number of days but the issue really is that this witness wasn't in essence an adversary against mr walker and that a full cross examination could not be conducted against this witness because of her standing as his probation officer and i and so in the balancing test the district judge perry eyed one as took measures took a measure to conceal that from the jury that this was the parole officer the person parole officer paris his true identity was never revealed to the jury that's correct but that's not the the position that the defense wanted to wanted they wanted to be able to cross examine her and and go into please the court and respect are for united states and us trial counsel below i'm going to confine my argument to the question that she copes asked about the probation officer just want to clarify that it was the trial council's decision the choice of words that they selected now they had the opportunity to a massacre in pro her any bias that she has they did when they were able on cross examination to explore that she read the complaint that she spoke to the prosecutors that she knew that mr walker was arrested so the jury was able to learn that she's not just a random person that she's someone who was somewhat involved in this case and this just falls on the well settled balancing a rule for one and rule for three the evidence was extraordinarily probative because the one issue that the defense put issue in this trial was whether this man who was at this point where in a hooded sweatshirt was mr walker and things are happening quickly now we argue to the jury that you could still tell it's mr walker but certainly is probative for someone who is met with mr walker eighteen times could see his gait could see his mannerisms in a pine that it is indeed mr walker and the prejudicial prong of it is certainly no different than what we do in the rule for a for b context when there's evidence that comes in that's very probative undisputed element and yet reveals some sort of prior bad act and this is no different in this court has recognized that this type of evidence is permissible as early as granted it was not in the context of probation officer but other courts of appeals of all recognize that this is appropriate with respect to discussions of hill i'll just add that not only is hill dispositive but the united states supreme court decided the stoping keys different statute but the same idea when you commit a robbery you're overcoming someone's will that's how you think the property and this case is just a reminder of how violent robbers can be in this case mr walker tried to kill the clerk he flashed the gun the clerk so we submit that the issue is settled what's your honour's have questions about any of the other issues raised on appeal i'm happy  just one more issue with respect to parole officer paris one of the issues that the government put forward in their arguments that there was this desire to disguise himself or this this push by the defense to disguise himself you know what we didn't stay for dinner the record does substantiate this they sought to introduce to probation officer paris's testimony prior to trial this was just in their playbook this was something that they were going to do and regarding ray heath i just want to say again i understand the ball he does hit us in terms of the jurisdictional aspect but one of the things that we put forth in terms of what we believe is plainer is that the instruction that was given argument about well on their cross appeal regarding new york nd degree robbery again as i knowledge in my brief i understand the rulings in this circuit regarding this and honor the case law does but judge weinstein made a different decision we think judge weinstein decision was the correct decision but i'm but i must acknowledge the case law that exists but i do think that the the case law that that's been built in this again it leaves finish my thought your honor about jergens i think it you know goes to the heart of what i'm talking about that you know in looking at new york state case law that the decisions that are being relied upon in the  would not qualify as a robbery under new york law and i was just in agreement against the parties and that's been cited as more or less a that simple perch that is not enough now i'll note this in a state case in a and i think this is really important i mean i understand your view that that judge winds he was correct even though the control and more goes the other way i mean i've been in that position myself but the the the the the fairness and it was only necessary to take care of one and the judge found that one was invalid that's correct your honor and what you says is that because i have disqualified that this nd to be robbery it's unnecessary for me to make a review under ac