essentially whether he has been convicted of a predicate offense since the nine twenty four c offense has a separate crime does it matter which predicate he's been convicted of it does because the crime of violence is an district judge vacated trial for only count two could be a predicate but since a conviction for the crime of violence is not an element why does it follow why couldn't  but even without a connection to the core of your question i don't think there has to be a conviction you know we have to look at the crime of violence however to see if that meets the element of crime of violence under the one twenty four c count so the question is is that is the conduct that would be the underlying offense conviction or no conviction does that underlying offense have as an element i mean that's our first question here for it put the residual clause after the side doesn't have as an element the user attempted a force or threatened use or threat so what is around some to me and what is a ransom demand in this case or in general and in general in general it is making a demand for payment for the release of someone and why is it not reasonable to treat the ransom demand as carrying necessarily an implied threat to harm the victim because that it's for the release of the person that's why if you get paid right but what if you don't it could be not releasing the person in the case of a child not releasing a child maybe no harm would come to the child but the child would not be released to i assume the parents g i think and that gets us to the ordinary cases and i think in ordinary case yes in most cases we see it's going to be the threat of harm to the next kidnapping is not always trickery sure but i mean how you get somebody into your control is a different question the question is what the demand for money carries with it and well let me let me back up for a second and say what do you think the standard of review is on this question for us it's plain they're ok because as you so let me ask you why it would not be plain error to treat a ransom demand as carrying an implied as their it was their ransom demand you know but if but the ransom demand itself has to be related to a kidnapping so that is an example where it wouldn't necessarily be a threat of harm you know  kidnapping therefore the threat of so i will talk i think i'm going to leave given the limited time leave the nine twenty four legs if you will clause perhaps to the supreme court and the effects that the mayan might have and talk a little bit about the attempted  again even if that's the underlying of crimes for the one twenty four c resurrected not resurrect whatever we want to do there i do question the resurrection i addressed that in my reply brief but the fact is that that the can be a crime of violence either because it doesn't necessarily involve the element of use of force and also because it is an attempt an attempt it doesn't necessarily mean to attempt all remitted say that the the the nine twenty four say that ninety four c three b is determined to be unconstitutional i was just trying to address the the court's earlier question it's a term of be unconstitutional in this case is cross peel and well one would think after that q e did the supreme court building greenlaw that in the absence of a cross appeal the court of appeals cannot modify the judgment in favor of the prosecutor i think that the twenty to fifty five opinions that we cite at least suggests that the essence of what we're looking at is what you want us to do ignore the supreme court know you have a way to distinguish greenlaw i do not you are well then i think you need to move on to some other argument and even if you did i don't see how you get around the color of official right problem but i think your honor that if you look at the statute that you know i apologize but could i just address that question if you look at the nine hundred fifty one  you look at the the extortion case the definition of extortion i think that that particular statute is actually divisible between those those not those alternatives that constitute force versus the alternative that is color of the fifty right and then if you look further at what is required to prove a crime under color of official right you'll see that that requires a separate element of government would have to show a qui and if you look at that and you can apply the modified categorical approach and look at the indictment and you can see that mr cured thing wasn't back charged with the forced portion of i'm not asking your counsel because look you're trying to defend we've got the district judgment district or judgment here that's being attacked on grounds that were never presented to the district court i'm certainly willing to entertain a variety of grounds that may not have been discussed by counsel or in that court that would save their judgment if it's the right thing to do legally so i'm asking you your views i think looking at the crime of extortion is specifically here it does yes i've just gone in and read it doesn't mention section nine twenty four either section nine twenty four see we're section nine twenty four east or how kind of held that a ransom demand is not a crime of violence within the meaning of either of those two things i did miss speak when i said that what burkett talks about is that kidnapping can be done i'm sorry that the communication a ransom can't demand can be done without