enough issues afoot in this appeal to make to make your head spin i think the i think it makes sense to focus on two of them for purposes of today the st would be  defense of conviction did not qualify as a crime of violence under nine hundred and twenty four c three the court knows there are two ways you can meet the definition of a crime of violence or that statute the st is the force or elements cla of those have been overruled by stoping because we're dealing with a different completely different statutory scheme and one case where robbery was defined and another was that's my but again your honour's the briefing has been so limited on that i mean we've it at least under bell but as far as still going and its impact on the case all we have is you know a page and a half of briefing from the from the government in a supplemental brief that frankly wasn't supplemental to anything that had been raised before so to me that's  garden variety waiver i don't think we should even get into it but at the very least there should be an ability for us to respond to their supplemental brief and say here are all the reasons you know to briefing to the extent we had it been briefed before stoping it come out  my understanding of davis is that it was this is not a change in law that should have been difficult to predict i mean this was a hotly contested issue and i think if the government wanted to preserve its argument about how this other fo small's would work in this case the need to do that briefed in response to our briefing rather than just you know a week and even if argument would have been perfectly appropriate and i think should happen so we would stand by our argument that that that their arguments been waive and we originally our position was and we motion the court to remain the case to the district court because the the record in this case all we have in terms of puerto rico are no charging documents there's no there's absolutely no information in the record in my opinion to perform a full elements analysis which is why we asked the court to remand for the point of the spanish speaking counsel and someone who could go through a flush this all out in fact in the car where it discusses the nature of those charges it says the government has received no documents whatsoever to corroborate any of the information we're getting from probation so i think they decide the case just on that cryptic information that again since the specific statutory provisions aren't numerated in that p s r we don't know for sure if they're the ones that government is saying are the ones who must be convicted we don't know if those are actually the statutes at issue has had a long history but it began before the court of appeals in two thousand and fourteen when this court remained it to the district court for a straight forward ministerial imposition of a one hundred and twenty month sentence on the defendants nine hundred and twenty two g count because the district court had initially imposed in a legal one hundred and fifty month sentence on that count when this court in all monsignors one imposed its mandate in this case specifically quote we direct the district court on remand to enter a modified sentence of one hundred and twenty months on that count and what the purpose of that mandate was unequivocal as this court wrote in santiago ressa comparable case where a defendant attempted to raise a johnson claim following hold a sentencing hearing in order to impose a directive one hundred and twenty month sentence in this case therefore the government's position is that all of defendants arguments at this point in the nd appeal which while outside of that particularly   in his briefing at least on the issue of waiver claiming that the government has waived its argument that the elements clause analysis can apply here to get around the issue created by davis and his invalidation of the residual clause waiver is the o and it also pointed out at the court's invitation to address any other relevant precedent that in and stop playing the supreme court specifically addressed the issue of whether common law robbery constitutes a violent felony under the meets those requirements for certain degree of violent force in order to constitute a violent felony or a crime of violence under the elements clause i believe it's without dispute in this case that the particular statute at issue for the crime of violence analysis and twelve incorporates the common law definition of robbery it's defined as quote punishing whoever robs or attempts to rob another of any property belonging to the united states in this case it was state charges were based on the same conduct so why isn't a situation where we can assume that the federal charge which the scribes in the gum at the  charges and the federal charges are based on the same conduct so because understand just five puerto rico in the united states are the same sovereign the court needs to engage in the locker analysis which asks whether each of the convictions  state and federal so thirty four dollars state three federal in this particular case if each conviction the underlying crime has an element that the other crimes do not have so in your in your example your honor would you know how about just with the face of the statute yes you look at the face of the statute exactly but i don't know but you can also look at what the conduct was that was being charged right well if the conduct is different then what you have is completely separate offenses based on separate content of the what i'm suggesting here you agree it's the same i agree that it's the same conduct that has been charged but the difference here is that the crimes that the defendant was convicted of have different elements so for that  defendant was you know have this particular god that he brandished it that he pointed at somebody it's relatively overlapping conduct's so it's the government's position that would be a more straightforward path to rejecting the double jeopardy claim if the court were to just look at which the defendants carried by the way you would have separate elements for each offense and therefore the defendant's double jeopardy claim must fail how do you respond to counsel's argument are you doing  five if the court does have questions about the record that would be the appropriate disposition here but it's the government's frontline position that the p s r does provide an adequate basis to accurately determine not offer any particular provisions that he says do match up categorically with the elements of his federal offenses he just attacks it i'm sorry well it's his burden that's why he would do that yes to show that there was an error and that was playing the error he's claiming is that his federal convictions are in violation of double jeopardy and therefore he must show based on the plane or standard that that error applied in this case that his federal convictions have the same element as a state infection weapon by amy so and the state charge on its face in the weapon would would double jeopardy or the federal charge of those circumstances so so i think what you're talking about your honor is possibility that there is a lesser included offense situation here so if if the statute required if he charged explicitly said he's charged with aiming a weapon yes so if aiming a weapon is an element of the federal offense and that is prove that he in the weapon in order to sustain a conviction and that but blocker says it says you look at the elements of the crime that the defendant has been convicted of or to just facts or get a for a for being or other evidence that the government could offer up a trial and then based on looking at those elements you determine whether they are the separate offenses because they each require a distinct element to prove the crime and if they do require a distinct element as all as all of the seven crimes in this not have a sufficient record to make that analysis and what i find troubling is that we invite we asked to relinquish jurisdiction of the record to have this very conversation get to the bottom of this we don't want to waste anyone's time if they're correct let's get this done but they did they objected to that and moreover if if there if all these documents said if it was this clears is the government is saying that it is there's another really easy way except as to supplement the record on appeal we would have objected to provide the documentation  well the district where did a full basically a full blown resentencing of no rejection from the government the government never said at any point during that resentencing hey hold on a nd you know the only thing that we're here to do is this limited this this little this limited appeal but i think there's ambiguity there and i think the court can address the sense as i walk it back all the way to for a collateral view and a whole different a b s proceeding it doesn't it doesn't make sense and it imposes a lot of additional obligations on my client  i don't think he should have procedural hurdles that i don't think he should have to jump through and one last comment you know just before my time runs out is on pages eight to ten of the library if we provide a pretty lengthy analysis of why the statute puerto rican statutes that the government is suggesting my client violated why those don't you know if in my reading of the law puerto rico cannot can't are not likely to be the ones he was actually convicted