which is as a procedural matter what is the appropriate response given that on the one hand march in a studio has been vacated but yet there are two other binding precedents on the books in my nd rule twenty eight chain letter i then and there are knowledge that it's precedent then might that kind of answer my question there but you're right we can fill in front a week and we do have the authority to do that it doesn't mean that the court would agree with us that we can do that yes whether in fact we really need to confront the issue that was teed up and refused to do you know because looking at your case in contrast to the other two i guess i was inclined to think that whether matter of sorts or should receive from difference or sexual intercourse of course that decision noted that this can be consensual sexual contact between two teenagers there is nothing exploitation or if there's about sexual contact between two teenagers  attorney general the court here should deny the titian purview because the arizona sexual conduct with a minor statute is categorically a crime of child abuse the generic definition has three elements the negligence it's an intentional or no we love act and that the child the age here is under fifty where as to meet the gender definition that just has to be under eighteen so we're only really disputing whether the acts of sexual intercourse or oral sex with a child under fifteen are maltreatment of the child own and the government's position is that under this court's precedent and under for the other under california statute that you seventy three and i don't know to what extent you are familiar with that are are you trying to tell us your case is just much easier to win when yet meaning being here i think it is much easier because as joint property was getting at i don't think that this is not in danger mitch subset that if so we don't need to look at risk assessment it's not it doesn't fall into the clarification a matter of storm in this court doesn't even have to reach whether or not to defer the matter so long and for that or point to the court's decision and human as war as which came out after a matter of sauron but then even mention it in that case a more as was addressing the sex not that are broader than the one here in the issue there was any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person whereas here it's  here you've heard your opponents say that in theory at least this that you could reach consensual conduct kind of between two key to the view that interest yes ok a couple of things primarily i would point out that there is no requirement for an age differential but the generic definition of child abuse so while the washington statute that issue and jimenez were as the court mentions a differential that wasn't required because the generic definition doesn't require that i have a nd but you seem to claim that a sixteen year old could commit child abuse on a fifteen year old if the two had consensual sex together i'm not saying that because that's not at issue in this case and in order for that to apply the person who st of all has to be an adult or tried as an adult but that's the problem isn't it from a kind of decided to go to just that's the we it's part of your case to address that specifically ok well again i would point back to the fact that there is no requirement for child abuse of an age differential but i did look into what arizona requires for being tried as an adult and i found one case this is two hundred and forty nine arizona five hundred and seventy eight where a child did get the sentence and he asked me for dangerous crimes against children for sexual conduct when he was fourteen to sixteen and he was having sexual activity with his niece who was married a five years old and i think that was the only case i could find in certain extreme contacts a forty six year old who's having sex with three to five year olds could be committing child  but in that was the only one i found where there was only a a juvenile was not tried in juvenile court for sexual conduct rather than deal but was actually tried as an adult in only for an adult criminal conviction oh it is they are argument on path sort of a concept that yeah there might be out there a possibility a way a little teeny chance that that could happen what you're talking about but it's so remote that we don't need to worry about it is that what you're saying well this is a categorical analysis but there is also a consideration of what is the realistic probability with this sentence and hanson it combined with the sexual conduct and we're saying that it is categorically going to be maltreatment of a child to under the age of fifteen and that these hypotheticals about consensual sex between two teenagers are not what is being printed a life with a combination of these two statutes and you know  categorically child abuse within the boards definition and within and then as more as and particularly in footnote to which just says that touching the sexual or intimate parts of a child no older than fifteen categorically constitutes not treatment of the child and that's exactly what we have here we have a child no older than fifteen a fourteen year old or younger and we have someone who's doing even beyond just touching and it is  maltreatment of the child and impairs the child's mental wellbeing so we would argue that this case is well within the existing presidential definitions and the quote doesn't even have to decide whether in this case whether  if there are no further questions i don't think we have any further questions any either of you have questions you read that you run the room on that one we don't have further questions you don't have to feel compelled to use every  all right well i would like to address briefly go on as because that was dres didn't get issues argument and just remind the court that that involved a separate remove ability ground it's an aggravated felony that was the case a child abuse that's in our brief that's a twenty eight dollars decision and it rejected the attempts to bring it into the sexual abuse of a minor aggravated felony because that's just an entirely separate room of the grounds noted as a possibility plus we have the statutory over breath that is eighteen or so and had a child who's tried as an adult which would which would then be consistent with the arizona only case law and the nd point a contrary decision would conflict with gomez which also the at nine o four noted that consensual contact can be the basis which is why i found this to be over bride to the special accused of a minor questions so matter will stand submitted thank you both for your argument in this case you will hear from us when you hear from us all right thank you