our fourth case for argument today is united states against williams robbery by intimidation categorically a crime of violence under the elements clause of nine twenty four surely it's clear that in addressing this the court must only look at the statutory definition and freezer and that a conviction  and you know somebody who walks into a bank and is holding a gun deserves to go to jail for a long period of time and it's absolutely appropriate under reasonable discretion the district judge would use instead of saying well i think where the problem then comes in is constitutionally has anything happened since or or that would cause us to overrule that decision which seems quite dispositive here i think you're out of the a little less case out of the correct i believe with all due respect that the court did not match in our address or its prior precedent as well as a wellness awareness is no or mentioned in the elements of eighteen u s c eight seventy five c which made the cry and the transmitter in interstate commerce quote any communication containing any threat to injure the person of another unquote and the court went on to say says conviction was premised solely on how his poll would be understood by a reasonable person that a liability turned out whether in reasonable person or regards the communication as a threat regardless of what the defendant thanks reduces culpability on the all important element of a crime to negligence and we have around better reluctant to infer the negligence standard was intended in criminal statutes and further and then referring back to our own pattern jury instructions with regard to bank robbery by intimidation and a little awareness of say you heard my questions in the first case i don't understand where these extra mental intense states are coming from bank robbery is not a crime that can be committed by negligence it's an intentional offense one has to intend to rob the bank now as with many offenses the intent requirement does not deal with all the elements you don't even have to know let alone intend that your bank be insured by the federal deposit insurance corporation to commit the crime of bank robbery so you have as is perfectly normal or a crime where the basic act  has to be intentional but other things don't independently have intent because you seem to be saying that none of those crimes can be crimes of violence which and i don't understand why that meshes with the language of the statute i don't believe that occurred that's correct your honor to commit a bank robbery by intimidation yes an intentional crime but committed by intimidation it's based on the mandatory seven years in this case based and simply the perceptions of the victim i submit to the court is constitutionally repub repugnant based on what we have known since the constitution was drafted about criminal liability so you think twenty one thirteen eg a constitutional lawyer why why isn't your argument one that the bank robbery statute is unconstitutional we have no complain about bank robber state will you stay in your argument logically implies the invalidity of the bank robbery statute i don't see how you can be contesting the now in twenty four seek conviction without contending that twenty one thirteen  is invalid the bank robbery statute got it has obviously different elements than the nine twenty four c and we have to deal with those two step statutes separately and apart we understand that the bank robbery statute thirteen d which is bank robbery by actual for that we admit the bank robbery by intimidation our twenty one thirteen eight we have no constitutional gripes so to speak with their once you move to the separate statute of nine twenty four there's the spring court's camera the jury was instructed that the government need prove only that a reasonable person would regard a loss communications was crushed and there were threats and that was error federal criminal liability generally  and the results of that act without considering the defendant's mental state so when we consider twenty one thirteen separately from nine twenty four seat and circuit precedent and supreme court's precedent that with all due respect i s bank employee to deliver money to him that he knows he's not entitled to right yes i can say that it's tough to   to get money property he's not entitled to but we don't know whether or not a bank robber has a cousin who was a bank teller who told them we're told just base a seven year mandatory sentence on the perception of the victim and that's why we're asking it were you not saying it's constitutionally improper to our strict liability under criminal statutes as a i'm sorry to merit or the are you saying it's has an element the use that attempted use or threatened use of force the defendant's position would require the court to overturn an armor and there is certainly no good reason to do so nine twenty four c elements satisfied by the intentional word knowing application of force that is satisfied by a bank robbery statute which carter requires that there be knowledge as to the actors phrase in other words that act of intimidation under twenty one thirteen must be knowing that was satisfied by the facts of this case as well if there are no questions from the panel the government would ask the court affirm the district court's judgment what a statute that punishe