relevant this case it's the government's contention that the defendant was a career offender having been convicted of at least two prior crimes of violence or serious drug offenses those convictions involved a drive by shooting  conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance the court determined that those two convictions were consolidated for sentencing purposes and resulted in a finding that one of those qualified as a crime of violence under the definition under the sentencing guidelines of forty one point two it was the government's contention that the attempting to allude conviction was also a crime of violence the district court found that that did not present a crime of violence under the definition of the guidelines and that is the government's appeal here that's tempting to allude under the washington statute is the willful and wanton disregard property that it falls outside the reach of the definition of crime of violence the definition of crime of violence on the other hand under the sentencing guidelines for the one point two eight only covers conduct that under the otherwise clause covers conduct by its nature presented a serious potential for injury to another so it doesn't have the property aspect to the definition i'm like the case of compost for and that is merely a potential risk for injury to another or you can have a property well the statute doesn't cover just another property or covers and others person to and if by dissecting the statute the attempting to allude statute to illogical conclusion that you could be driving a motor vehicle you know willful and wanton manner while being pursued an active pursuit by a police officer with his lights flashing by definition presents a persons involved it's just like the drive by shooting the buildings are occupied but who is to say that a homeless person didn't light in the building that evening and in a drive by shooting risks but there's a qualifier that's his serious united states attorney it's apparent that this case turns on the issue of whether or not the crime of attempting to elude under the washington statute is a crime of violence as defined under the sentencing guidelines for simply look to the fact of conviction and the statute itself does the definition is the definition met by the statute in this case it is not because an individual can be convicted under the statute for for conduct which does not constitute a crime of violence as the court has pointed out their individual could be convicted for violating that statute simply by putting property at risk which is not under the definition of crime of violence for the clear offender definition and sound about vegas the court stated that it is not sufficient to establish the circumstances surrounding the offense might have allowed a conviction rather aggravated felony definition and the ninth circuit found that state of mind of recklessness the least efficient to begin the analysis to determine whether or not a crime falls under the definition of a crime of violence so i think if this court were to make definition under the washington statute as a member of the statute still apply all true yes it does property or yes it does your honor i have a copy of it guidelines for several reasons the first it does not even meet the definition under the categorical approach because the statute is overbroad it under his conduct for damage to property which is beyond the definition for people who have been convicted of very serious crimes of violence again although it's not stated in the circuit it doesn't have to be an intentional crime of violence and a reckless standard is possible although there are need to stop and was speeding why doing so i stopped my dear god soon as i saw the police but i'm pleading guilty to get the police so there is nothing here that would tell us what the court we li fish specifically says we are merely skeptical but fish then proceeded to apply the modified categorical approach to the otherwise clause of the crime of violence subsequent to breaking in this case u s versus matthews and another is likely to recur i suggest that dozens of people have this conviction under the statute the statute was modified the words person or property were taken out they don't exist anymore  recitation of the elements by the prosecutor in the plea document as well as the defendant's conduct admitting that he was speeding while being pursued by of police vehicle but then later puts him there but i don't admit that con