now you know i'm realistic enough to know that the label attempt murder his is pretty shocking and it and it sounds like it's something that would be violent and maybe in a conversation among lay persons we could talk about that but you know it's all i have a question whether any of this year is before us you know this is this is here on a second or successive petition which we authorized to make an argument under samuel johnson the twenty fifteen case that tell the residual clause on the constitution and the year available to try to apply that on collateral review has long gone that there is no principle we held in stanley that samuel johnson reopens all questions provides the the basis for bringing the case i understand that and it's your stanley made the argument you're making now and we rejected it unless we over why is there anything properly before us now i'm not sure that that stanley actually holds them but if if you're telling me that it it did then argument with would be that stanley should not apply it doesn't if you want to make that argument you can't just ignore stanley and your brakes which you do for your brief just assumes that any xp petition nominally reminding on samuel johnson can make any argument about the arm career criminal no stanley says no if you disagree with that you want us to overrule stanley you raise that in your briefs well of course and in any adversary system since the government did not it say anything about stanley it's a little bit hard to say that we totally overlook stanley or that stanley should govern but the government is is not urging stanley as a basis to avoid this important issue and  has as far as the the issue itself i hope the court would be interested in a little argument on on that be the government seems to to to make a lot out of  the concurrence by judge hamilton and in morris where he wouldn't even say he takes the position but he can it be answered is the position for for consideration that if the object of an attempt is itself very expansive which is great for illinois state prosecutors because they get to convict people of all sorts of of murder cases but the problem is that the net is cast so so widely that it doesn't really meet the test of force under  illinois law and more to judge hamilton's poinar judge hamilton's question about the use of of attempt he seemed to be kind of concerned that congress could not have meant for all of these horrible crimes to go unpunished under aca but one thing that was not considered in that opinion i think you should consider it is that after of course had the residual clause in the residual clause was great for bringing in attempted felonies in this court did that a lot of burglaries cases the supreme court did it in james but now of course the problem is the supreme court has or will james if it so it doesn't show that decision for mr hill is is the end of the world it just shows that times have changed and if congress wants to make a fix  pretty obvious fix and the supplemental authority i presented to the court recently illustrates how easy the fix is you define whether the crimes of violence and at the very end you throw in a provision that says   government has made a comment that it has some procedural arguments they're not along the lines of stanley but in the district court the government  noted that here procedural arguments and said we're not going to bother with those we want to go to the merits the only sort of narrow procedural argument that they did in france was retroactivity and once again trying marched on and left that argument behind so suggested in the district court you waived any procedural offense and we can look through forfeiture but we cannot look through a waiver so what happened in the district court i think i would not agree with that which we've made in many many cases and and pretty persuasively are pretty consistently is not made here because it was that specific case in that specific argument was not made below and so europe authorization here and i think that is i think it could have been made and they did not make it that was a quirk that you're not a waiver which you could overlook and you know that's that's obviously in this case i would say that's obviously the easiest way to dissolve the case and so you would not have to be told that other issues well i'm not so sure about that i think you have the government basically invited the district court to decide the merits  mention that there are procedural issues fact you know we're not relying on those let's get on the merits decision on this issue i don't think i don't want to say that i have the language memorized but it don't believe that we said we're not relying on i think what we said was you don't need to reach those and perhaps that that maybe that means the same thing to your honor's it does not mean the same thing to me and i don't think that was what was intended to be conveyed by that on timeliness and all of that all those arguments that that we often do present in a full blown fashion it was not done in below and the government acknowledges and that's the reason why it's not done in that way and on appeal  in the government's view is not a question of an emotional reaction or a shock value that we argue and that many parts of how that attempted murder is in fact a crime of violence if the fact is that the statute requires specifically that a person in order to commit an offense the statute requires that the person intend to commit to the particular offense which you're convicted of you're charged with committing or charged with attempting to commit and then you do an act that is a substantial step toward the commission of that fence this case the offense that was intended to to be committed was first degree murder and that statute requires that a person that prove that a person kills an individual without lawful justification and does so if in performing acts which cause the death either intends to kill or do great bodily harm to that individual or another or knows that such act cause death to that individual or another that's the provision specifically that this defendant was complete convicted of attempting to commit that is the language that was used in the charging information and you have here is that a person needing to number one intend to commit a crime that clearly involves the use of force because to kill a person doesn't fall they and act that would cause bile that was capable of causing bodily harm or injury to another person and takes a substantial act toward that and the statute that word that we're dealing with the a c c includes attempted use of force those two is procedurally barred however this court need not reach those those issues is respond to me she said it's up to you to decide what to make of that language but that's the language and i provided for your ready reference but the main theme of the government's argument is that if you intend to do a violent an act then you have satisfied the provisions of the aca but after it does not put it that way it asks what are the elements of the offense and the elements of it will knowing attempt say say nothing about intending to do a violent act it's just talked about the basic elements and the problem with