subsequent twenty to fifty five dollars go forward and only on the aggravated assault we only went forward on that for the field reserving the right bring up the strong arm robbery at a later date mr griffin was indicted when this case came up before the court the district court judge saluted in this court the fist circuit allowed him to go forward the government waived its right to bring up the appellate waiver by not bringing up in the district for say no it's not just it's not limited to it does your honor let me ask it another way tell us why aggravated assault in mississippi is not a crime of violence what takes it outside that definition yonder there's many ways it can be done not even just the supreme court wished to overrule curtis johnson or even look at it and either voice and or kassam and they could have specifically done that however they did and so those are still viable supreme court precedent for defining violent films and so that countries raises with the guidelines we are pursuing it under the arm for a criminal act and not the god is and so is our position that the least culpable  also referred to the voicing decisions in court that held that reckless conduct can constitute the use of physical force the mississippi statute that's at issue tracks a exactly the model penal code that this court has said is the primary source for comparing corresponding elements for the purpose of section nine hundred and twenty four iii a comparison elements of the mississippi statute with the generic crime found in the model penal code supports that it does constitute a crime of violence under the elements clause reyes contrary switch looked through the supreme court's castleman opinion which said it's impossible to cause bodily injury without applying force in the common law since castleman said that causing bodily injury bodily injury necessarily involves the use of force griffin has shown no realistic possibility of the state of the state would apply the statute to conduct that falls outside of the generic definition of the strong griffin can't show any likelihood of his business in the aggravated assault condition conviction that that was counted based on the residual cla show that it is more likely than not that's the sentencing judge allied on the residual clause here we have judge lee the district judge says i did it that's right and the original sentencing transcript it a little hard to know is that it does say we're focused here on the residuals so i mean what better evidence than the judge at the sentencing saying this is what i relied on back then was that the only contested issue that was was with respect pleading guilty this defendant knew that he could be sentenced to a minimum of fifteen years if the government satisfied the just record that he had three prior violent felonies griffin nonetheless agreed to waive his right to appeal on any ground whatsoever as well as the right to contest his conviction and sentencing in any post conviction proceeding this is an unlimited waiver with no reservations based on this language this court dismissed the original appeal holding beth if the peel was barred by the plain language of the waiver this court was so the physical force that was required and was set out in kasman included just simply squeezing someone's arm under the common law and constant in the bruise not be sufficient to deny someone a weapon under yet no one has looked at it in the city each state as far as a non violent as that i'm aware of it has construed in other cases in action such as throwing a liquid on someone which again does not meet the cards johnson definition of violent foresees to cause an injury so that there are those cases out there also there's another case where a noose was simply placed around someone's neck there's no evidence that it was tightened or anything else i believe  in clay a footnote one as i stated earlier says that the government must invest in a pew waiver to enforce it and they have not done so in that case simply as they have not done so in this case in an act case it would not allow and display the court the government sides the burns case however the burns case this court in force the up to a waiver because the district court dismissed the mr wish to see in the government never brought up the issue of the future which as i said the poor knows well the government knows well