expertise required so basically the government is asking the board to predict how the ninth circuit is going to rule on a statute that it has no if special expertise to to decide many of the arguments  and i should also remind the court he was convicted of facilitating a drive by shooting and under the state of its report of washington in order to conduct a disability you only have to have general knowledge of the crime you do not have to have the same the driver and a pervert was the driver the perpetrator has to commit the crime recklessly but she had to only have general knowledge i would submit by being a driver of car noise someone has a gun in your car and as a yes yes your honor he understands and i've talked to in fact the government opposed to joy most of the night i was leaving and i talk to my client on the follow he fully understand you only need general knowledge you don't have to even have reckless mental state so it's my example to drive a car despite being in a car knowing a person has a gun knowing they have a beef against somebody if they just decide of another and the board addressed leo cal but the board did not have the opportunity to address fernandas release because it had not yet been decided so we are asking the court to remand this case in order for the board to consider fernand sentence is not an issue the only issue is whether this is a crime of violence we believe that the court's interpretation stance and the court's interpretation is that as long as there is a  gunshot from a car in a drive by shooting can be considered forced can be considered worked against a personal property with the likelihood of force against the property and that this is the statute under recklessness which brings me back to my initial point that the board didn't have the opportunity to review fernandez releases and their reasoning in printing this reason with regard to this drive by shooting statu and in in the definition of a felony the board has to determine whether crime of violence has occurred here so the board should should be allowed to address that because there is new law and ventura does israelis in the situation were to do that in view of your need for consultation what would be a reasonable time period you were at a time of holiday season because you need to consult and so forth so if we were to order further briefing how long would you need realistically without having to ask for extensions of time i think realistically three weeks ok to be perfectly fair even with the holiday season and i guess there might even be a miracle that upon consultation they might decide that in light of this case this is now a crime of violence correct and then you would so it buys us correct although i would rather have the board make that make that decision and not not not the consultation of the agency or even argument but we believe that the board should have that first opportunity and and didn't have it and the board one of the board's missions is to apply the law whether it be criminal requires proof of the reckless use of force against a person or property of another qualifies as a crime of violence under eighteen u s c section sixteen hernandez ruiz directly addressed that point this case