appeals present a single issue is wisconsin burglary an armed career criminal predicate issue is easier than it was at the district court level and neither of these cases given the new precedent mathis and had words under mathis the question is whether wisconsin burglaries locational turn into our elements or meets and that is a pure legal pretty technical question where jurors have to unanimously agree on the location to find the defendant guilty and is a defendant who pleads guilty necessarily admitting to the location and tracking this court's analysis in other words every factor points to the location as meets the various location subsections overlap they carry the same penalty and they are conceptually equivalent so the only sticking point in this case is that the burglary locations are some divided but that's just a point of style the wisconsin legislature likes subdivisions and i was a state public defender for sometimes i liked subdivisions to the federal criminal code is a little bit harder to read and math is speaks directly to this point the issue in mathis was rather the divisibility analysis would be controlled by the shadowline of cases on the elements first as means or whether it would be controlled by whether a state legislature chooses the umbrella term that is overbroad or chooses to create a disjunctive list of means some of which would count some which wouldn't so that would be overbroad to and what the supreme important mathes that is we have to focus on what is the actual element and in the supreme court's words they say that the analysis doesn't depend on the fortuity of legislative drafting now i yesterday the government filed a twenty two letter on and it circuit case u s versus william and i was on the road at that point so i could file something in writing if your honour's would like that i'll respond to it in a few ways right now first the defendant in that case did not make this argument at all  they apparently agreed that sub nine forty three tenths of one m subway was a distinct offense and exclusively made the argument that since the wisconsin courts have never defined dwelling maybe it means something broader than what taylor intends so they didn't have the benefit of really looking at the law at issue here the second point is that the one state case they cite sexual assault law that really didn't have much of anything to do with the baldwin case and in fact it's i think helpful to the defense here that the government filed with the baldwin case along with their twenty eight jail letter and i kind of wish i could found it previously because it's really helpful in illustrating with this court found in other words which is that in wisconsin shepherd documents aren't that helpful that case the charging document had charged the defendant in the country saying that they could used force and threatened force but then the jury instructions said use force or threaten force the wisconsin supreme court said it doesn't matter what they wrote in the complaint all that matters is whether under the statute they use of threat of force are elements or means in that case they were months it was completely fine and it was presumed the jury and the disjunctive the jury did not have to be unanimous in the last thing i'll say about landis they say we haven't found any wisconsin cases that don't sort of go out to the the subdivision that don't refer to the location i'm not i don't really think that makes a difference you know in any case you're going to talk about the location of the burglary but also like i'll need to go back when i get to the office but certainly i think i feel like i've seen quite a few wisconsin cases that refer to burglary more generally they don't always cite out to every subdivision so i'm not sure perhaps the it's circuit was referring to the cases that were cited in the briefing in that case which again the briefing with on a different ship i'll just say for what it's worth i would welcome an additional written supplement on that point because i've got to say though the eighth circuit decision looked pretty well thought through to me but if you think they got the wisconsin war wrong we'd like to hear about it they obviously know that we're at least think we're probably a little more familiar with wisconsin law here but  nevertheless had to make a decision i'd be happy to do that your honor you know in particular on the point the court made it page nine thirty two we find support wisconsin case are certainly aren't defining the crime of conviction they probably talk about the location and most of them but i would be happy to put to do something in writing if there are no question sentence so i don't think it would on ravel the plea in this case so i guess the answer is no there's a statute run on the possession should he be charged with two more counts i believe under the terms of the plea agreement no he cannot thank you oh ok thank you miss  good afternoon your honour's me please the court my name is laura siblings keep and i'm an assistant u s attorney in madison wisconsin to answer judge hamilton's question first sounds plea agreement would protect him at this point this is really just a sentencing issue and so if the court were to carefully analyzed the statute lamb was remanded aftermath us the court looked at wisconsin precedent and cases and they made their decision based on that and i will say that i have is it because when you look at the statute you have to pick one it's a blank there's nothing there the temptation is to insert building as a generic term but that's not how the statute is written if there is any burglary statute in the country that has alternative locations that is going to survive mathis wisconsin burglary is the one to do it because it doesn't have this umbrella term like i q creational structure defined in a different part of the statute and then defined in broad term that the court looked at as means what the wisconsin statute says is you enter any one of these places with the intent without consent with the intent to steal or commit a felony and then you have to pick one and when lamm cited baldwin to me that was very insightful because when they're looking at baldwin there are two are subsections and the first subsection of how you commit this crime is a violent and forceful way that's eight and then the rest of them are a little bit different one is if someone was mentally ill one is if somebody was unconscious so there's only one of those where you use violence and i think we can circle back to the wisconsin statute and then go all the way back to taylor taylor said like generic burglary is you have to enter a building or ok so we are a billet building or a structure there's no question here that franklin and sam were convicted of a generic burglary there's nothing confusing about it they were both convicted under that subsection what we're really trying to do is make it confusing you can't do it really trying to do is work is to make it a straightforward statute more confusing than it is because the argument is that all these things are kind of the same and you really can't tell which one and it really doesn't matter but it does matter because under taylor the only subsection of the wisconsin statute that qualifies as a generic burglary is subsection eight it must mean something it means something to someone and this is what it says building or dwelling and as this court defined wowing in edwards was an enclosed structure so that the definition is out there so we've got a perfect fit in terms of a generic burglary with subsection a and yet what we want to do is say yeah but what if you was be your what if it was c your what if it was d the fact is it was it in each case that i've seen the what's charged is a specific subsection there is not this umbrella term it's as clear as can be and i think it survives math it's different than the other statutes cited it's different than  tent in there at all and as this court defined it in in edwards the court said it's best understood as providing two examples of an enclosed structure rather than creating two separate offenses in addition the defendant concedes that if this court were to find the statute divisible and that subsection a was divisible these judgments stand and i don't think there's any reason to disturb that under under these facts under the law in light of how lamb analyzed it and then there's also the eleventh circuit casing gundy that took the ga statute that is similarly worded also doesn't have an umbrella term you know and they determine that that that statute which because in edwards edwards dealt with courage under guidelines and the definition for a crime of violence there are burglary there was the burglary of a dwelling specifically so you couldn't even use building building doesn't count under the guidelines only dwelling did not course that's all changed as well but so the focus on edwards was whether you could pull apart subsection eight and whether you can pull apart building or dwelling here you don't need that under the a c c you don't need to pull those things apart  recreational vehicle countersued well not under the definition in edwards and there's a separate section under the wisconsin burglary statute for recreational vehicles and a separate section that defines motorhome different this language must mean something to someone why it's subdivided and it does it mean something in federal court apparently at least it has in the past in wisconsin that's just not true you know the government acknowledges although in a footnote that at least one of the subsections obviously overlaps with everything because the final section is a room within any of the above so the idea that these are divisible elements would mean that breaking and entering into a house could be charged as burglary under two different subsections theoretically if you got acquitted of one they could come back and charge you and put you to trial again and you know also so why does it say building or dwelling and a lot of these cases at least according to the p s r move we're talking about as a building or a dwelling i mean these are automated judgments of conviction that are produced by a computer system it's not like there's a i can judge determining what the elements of the offense are for what's written on the judgment of conviction and that's why under the categorical analysis we focus on tremendous amount of freedom so they could say burglar trialing or start building or dwelling they could say building they could say one twenty two maple street to use the example that the supreme court used in math because in math that's what they say is in any jury trial the jury's going to know that this is about one twenty two people street and probably in most cases they'll agree we're talking about one twenty two people street but if that's not an element of the offense if it's still just a means that it's a building versus in that case it was a landry haeckel or an air vehicle then that's just the circumstances and the facts of the case that a sentencing judge