well aware of the limitations in terms of time and these oral arguments and i hope to be rather succinct and direct in my argument which is really meant to supplement the file and additional citation to the panel james versus the united states which is the recent case which ultimately states in these types of situations that the is quote conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another and i won't repeat that but in my my thinking in these types of cases is that what we have in the typical felon in possession case in the federal court under eighteen u s c section nine twenty that that regard your honor i intend to talk about the the prior conviction as related to the two forty three c the battery on the peace officer as well as the two seventy three point five the hybrid offense waber as they call it which relates to alleged spousal abuse but what i meant to say and i'll be brief here is that because we have such  hampstead penalties under the nine twenty four in the section it appears to me that at this stage or at even at the district court stage the court needs to look beyond the so called categorical approach i e the fact of conviction in the statutory definition of the financial look behind if we do that why  which was agreed to take a look at why isn't it pretty clear that that's battery on a police officer and that it's a crime of violence i think i think that it has the potential for know it it does but i think we have to look at in this particular case that's the case itself and the underlying and the state court was it was submitted to the court that the court could consider the police report as generally as a factual basis for the the plea what did not happen is that the defendant did not with any particularity stipulate t stipulated in the fact that the that the court has to review the police report to see if there is a factual basis for the plea then you distinguish that from stipulating to whether any facts there that you form a factual basis with lee well the point of it is that in terms of the here again in terms of the of the question of whether it's conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to two another certainly the facts contained within the police report would include facts that would indicate a serious potential but here no nor was there any admission by the defendant as to any specific facts supporting the question of whether or not the conduct admitted presented a serious potential risk of physical injury to another on the charge was he who willfully and with the use of force and violence inflicted an injury upon the police officer and they said look if you want for  no i understand read read the report to see if he take the facts in the report to see to sell actually we've seen it when you try to escape from an armed guard that presents a serious risk of this guy's trying to escape from the police officers that almost per se presents a serious risk here again my going to want to touch on your other issues i'm sorry do you want to address either of the other issues yes i would like to address the issue of the the prior conviction with respect to the two seventy three point five here again the factual scenario and again i think in a modified categorical approach given the fact that  we're there are only two prior convictions for the sentencing structure would be gravely different then than what it would be where there are three prior convictions that under that its face yes crime contused commit the crime of willful inflicting corporal injury upon your spouse that we salt in a traumatic condition can you commit that without force or violen i think you can add on to seventy three point five again is a hybrid offense which can be punishable as a felony or misdemeanor similar to  type of assault in this particular case looking behind the plea itself the the the facts support a slapping of the victim on the right cheek here again talking about the what is required for a requisite prior conviction is a concept a serious potential risk of physical  really the problem with that a misdemeanor battery being deemed not a crime of violence if i were taking mendez and that's what i thought was the the primary problem probably for the panel here in or take them and then the three judge panel basically does agreed with united states worse robinson which in prior found that battery on a peace officer is plainly a crime of violence in finding categorical pros who went to the underlying facts for the conviction also there's a grave there's a huge difference between a misdemeanor battery and a battery a felony battery on a peace think there's anywhere in that police reporter in the facts from the police report read by judge wayne or where it says that the defendant liberally crushed his hand somehow he engaged in a fight  laid a hand on the police officers i don't think so but also by my recollection that i could read it all now i'm sure but i think we've already done i'm trying to save you having to read the whole thing and we're trying to get through to so i don't think i don't think in the way that the police report was written that was used as this is a stupid factual basis for his state court conviction for felony battery on a peace officer with injury that the police report said in there that he slugged me that he had all it all it reflects i think is what basically happened was it was a fight if  we quired if it were required do you lose if we have to base it on that yes you do it well if it's required that that not because because of the fight because that there was the battery he is the one that initiated the confrontation and that's the struggle and during the course of the struggle the police officer gets in his bedroom there and he took a fighting stance and then they had to use it in the police dog towards him and then e initially stops and then the fight to stop resisting and starts the start of the fight and in fact as it goes on even after they put him in the car he tried to kick out the side window several times during this time say i threatened to kick all th over but i thought what you just read was that he tried to get away and they cackled him i did but it's an ongoing situation where he's in the bedroom initially probably would have been simple if i just read the whole thing  yes so now i mean it's like and this demonstrates you know i had to rely on a police officer because it demonstrates battery on a police officer because there was he and initiated the physical lawful authority to place him under house causing the physical confrontation that results in the officer being injured and i think as a practical matter that's when he  crime that creates a substantial risk of this winter and i think that battery on a peace officer particularly as a judgment and as was pointed out skipping from an armed guard would do it it certainly in and of itself creates that substantial risk or makes a scapegoat a crime of violence not necessarily i think there's been cases from the circuit fairly recently on just generic escape