yes by describing it an aggravated felony and then it refers specifically to for which the term of imprisonment is a least one here i think we have to ask ourselves why did so that's very important in analyzing whether or not no better is robbery statute meets through the test parsley and also punishable by year it seems to me that during the course has never included larceny as these as a specific subset of the robbery and so as a practicing criminal tree of all the immigration attorney i know that you can never generic crime of theft no where over here you have any analysis of comparison of nevada robbery to the generic crime of theft you compare it repeatedly to the nevada crime of larceny and so what i'm struggling with here because i think my sense is that underneath all this there may be a good argument is that have you ever and anywhere in this litigation ever said here's the generic crime of theft as defined by the federal statues and here's a divide a crime of robbery and one is broader than the other i can't find that argument ever having been made in  for me that and a case it goes well that's a matter of nevada that's a matter of nevada law i understand that is my question is once again and maybe maybe if better to focus on your briefs to us rather than your b argument i should add that i think it's probably a pretty good argument if it were made but i just don't see it being made to look at page twenty one of our brief and you'll see that we've repeating the same we're missing each other so let me try again because this is important to me you repeatedly they argue in your brief why robbery is not theft in nevada i think you're correct as plainly as my question is where you argue that robbery is not generic theft the fact that nevada doesn't make it a theft isn't the issue of in front of us the question is whether it's generic theft and i just don't see you say many of the apps acts prescribed by nevada staff statute would not be covered by the generic definition of staff and i understand that question my question is your job in this case  just ask you i mean that this is an important question to me as well if the question was not exhausted before th we're going to assume you are making the right argument and if you're making the right argument we find that the statutes are categorical match use given to be i actually dealt with precisely the argument that they concluded that the statutes are matching all relevant categories so why wasn't that white why didn't they directly address the issue that i'm now concerned about whether or jurisdiction what why wasn't this precise argument exhausted because the board actually treated it i understand your point i just think that the bigger question is what did he argue to the board and what did the dress within that i think a and the board understood it i think the board said no you're wrong the intent component is exactly the same  made a lot of statements that i think are pretty relevant here and i think it helps to understand what's required and about a lot of it indicated that it was only rejecting the notion of a specific intent to permanently deprive the victim of his property as opposed to an intent to deprive the victim or a lesser time but also stated quote what's relevant is a substantial if they are temporary or permanent with property rights without consent and that language and i think that's a nice shorthand for in nevada if i if somebody has property and i take it from him thinking that it's mine that's what o j simpson i think was trying to do i haven't i'm still committed robbery because i don't have an intent to steal or deprive him of the phone to ship because i don't think he has ownership your motto says we don't care if you forcibly take property from somebody else is no defense that it was your property you don't have to intend to steal it you just you just can't go forcibly taking property from other people we're going to punish that we're not going to litigate here who had ownership or anything else if that's true that's an accurate description of divine law why isn't the voters robbery statute not a categorical match for federal generics asked well explain is that the statute is meant to cover violent taking from the person of another and if you boil it down to that level it means that robbery is actually more narrow than  sort of explained that to me but perhaps the panel disagree although the act of violence and intimidation proceeding preceded the actual taking of the property it may have been primarily intended for another purpose is enough to support the charges of the indictment squarely hold that there's no necessity to have an intent to take the property it's enough that you just did i think what i think literal is trying to say that it's not necessary that you have the intent to take the proper speaking general was had crime mean that you intend to commit an act but not necessarily the result of that if i'm not mistaken in the specific intent means you are intend the result so it's quite a that's a robbery robbery here about it would be i'm intending the unlawful taking maybe not intending to actually take that forever steal it honestly and resell it or something that would require you know i don't know that's that's how i read that a robbery and the statute i think that my