to honor object robbery is not a crime of violence under the force clause which requires the use attempted use or threat use of physical force against a person threat of force or even actual force against property is not enough but your honor one look at the hobbs act robbery statute here makes it very clear that the force or threat of force against a person requirement is not satisfied you here for once when we don't have to muddle through the statutes try to figure out what congress men because it's right here in the statute congress in a big way said that hobbs act robbery can be violated by threat of property and not only that your threat to property in fact in this statute congress says it three times it says hobbs act robbery prohibits fear of injury immediate or future to the person or property of another or own people complain to you because the circumstances have changed your honor well you didn't object that's my point jack so how are we supposed to review your claim that it was well you and so if the government was conceding that the only thing that mattered was the forced clause then we're not going to argue that we're not going to make an issue about the rescission the only thing at issue in the whole sentencing was th right so your honor is addressing the generic robbery point i mean this court in peterson this court in florida screamed hottest has held that the way to determine the generic definition is by because you know it involves a potential risk of injury but that's not under the new guy and he definitely would not qualify because that's not incorrect and just a new guideline residual changed four days ago right and we need to apply that here but your honor if i if we did have jack to that we would have been doing our client a disservice because at that time united states so this court can decide it but if this court doesn't want to do that then it could remain back down i'm so they do the district court does get the first opportunity to make a finding on the new guidelines  you know we would submit that's not necessary here because it's very clear that it doesn't your follow up on what relieve do we want we would like for you to decide i think you could decide here that  were always required to be candid to the courtyard i tried to get it right i'll certainly say that at the time i believed i was stuck in a position where i had to argue robbery under the guidelines version that was less favorable to the government if the old guidelines were better for the defense than under the ex post facto stuck if the new guidelines were favorable to the offense than under the one book or in place of sentencing of stock was an agreed position for the government being either way the issue was whether or not object robbery qualified or the force clause or one of the two versions are under the enumerated robbery clause under one or two for sins either way under the sessions that the department of justice has made at the time i wasn't permitted at the strikes the government that the numerator of robert definitions of more interest the court the government does believe that hobbs act robert satisfies the definition of generic property as enumerated in the second clause of the old cometary or the new text of correct i would the government has noted that it believes are so harmless error in this instance which means that every man is going to address an issue of whether or not an individual who commits an armed robbery at gunpoint forces someone into a basement should receive a sentence comm the property aspect of homicide robberies a bigger problem for the government in the force clause analysis you are not going to order the robbery i'll stick with the numerator robbery this is the government simply first of all setting aside the fact that we're dealing with the phrase frogger that is undefined  s very clear the government their position of if you would like so i don't know here but this is no of course not this is a purely legal issue and i think that you know the from what the courts indicated