like to request five minutes from overtime at this time we are here because we believe the district court erred when it dismissed m by the district court at everett you're up you're opening brief i think primarily focused on the one you're with in johnson and whether that was the right time line and the government sort of conceded that and then moved on to some other arguments because of prejudice that you pick those up in  by this court are there are there arguments that you would make in the district court they didn't make us on the issues the government raised there there may be additional arguments that we would like to present to the district court depending questions of law before us is that correct that we have to decide whether the prior convictions are violent crimes within the meaning of the three strikes law or we have to it so we did address those if you and our reply agree there may be some some varying insists that we would have with pressed at at the district court level if we were  cause you a law on novelty but can you can you walk me can you walk me through that because it seems to me that you yourself act was not unconstitutionally vague if it would be it was an argument that couldn't properly be will properly be raised or properly be considered at the time of mr a body of a unanimous a near unanimous body of lower courts that rejected this ornament and it wasn't until the supreme court itself was it that the party fully briefed this issue of the vagueness if you that it even became something to where people get similarly situated to mr gates will and those  contained constitutionally they provisions which made them unconstitutional so in light of that as it relates to whether there is cause consider what the guideline rings in those cases would be not every individual who is facing toward a maximum of life or zero tell him i will receive a life sentence in order for a court to do that in light of guideline ranges that are substantially lord in a life sentence a court has to put on record the reasons for the variances that would take a statutory maxed out at two hundred and thirty five months to a life since it's none of those things so there is prejudice to mr gates will in the fact that he has already to this point served in excess of what the guideline range with being in day for date at this point with the guideline range topped out at two hundred and thirty five months so we believe we we have the cost in the president prejudice that would allow us to move on and i see my time is out  ok can i get i mean just in terms of jumping over actually jumping over quite a bit if you compare what you're asking us to reach versus what the district court result in your friend of the airside status might be other arguments he'd like to make in the district court so it's a typical for us try to not remain that the district court to reach issues in the st instance what judge but i thought in snyder it related cases this court has done that and i would say yes that path  can bring it back and on of this court again and say you know arguing about whether we saw la brea call us in our view the most efficient way is to proceed to the merits and and it might be different judge if if this were a close call on the vol to us because it was a johnson claim that this court now and met the cost that in our view is wrong in the other thing i would say about raines and because of the cases we were just discussing it and  permissible under the statute you touched on that in our brief that allow were you is not meant to address or remedy sentences that are a mess of will under the statute and the one is not it was discussed in the guidelines yes the guidelines were much lower than right in this case applied because of the enhancement question we are not now asking not a direct appeal to the watch later review matter it's not so as you pointed out in jane the supreme court itself foreclose jobs in this type argument so from two thousand and seven until they decided johnson two thousand and fifteen i think itself not futility created by lower courts supreme court judge or as reed tells us a near unanimous body of a lower court case law that i think the supreme court it implicitly approved yes that's the that's the exception and read that i believe it was invoking but it doesn't apply here there was no near unanimous body of case law in the ninety's thousands certainly not on the thirty available to him and that reimburses wants framework those exceptions do not apply in in this case you know for those reasons are the fault of the plot the easiest  focused not on the amount of force and fact the statute said the force was immaterial to the conviction for robbery the question in this case are we talking about all of arkansas robberies from the beginning of the criminal law in arkansas or up into the codification are we talking about what we are addressing in this but the statute that we're talking about from nine hundred and sixty six dollars seventeen cents specifically said the amount of force was immaterial so we're not looking at the victim in that in that context in i don't believe death and the force to overcome of the pins resistance or to overcome the resistance appearing in this odd format that we hope won't be the normal for ever and we thank you very much for your arguments