one point two the generic contemporary meaning of manslaughter requires a reckless mens rea in this court should follow the fifth circuit's lead and hold that the north carolina involuntary manslaughter statute does not categorically qualify as a crime of violence because it allows criminal liability based on merit careless and thoughtless disregard conduct the first step of a taylor record see what happened that would be the second part but the first step is to see what the term manslaughter means categorically just like in taylor they look to what is burglary mean categorically and when you look at what manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter means throughout most jurisdictions in the united states all require or all except i believe nine or ten require a consciousness of the risk north carolina doesn't require this the domingue is a chola court went through many of the jurisdiction showing how this is the majority view commented that the majority view requires a consciousness of risk the model penal code requires a consciousness of risk if if if when caroline is something like  intentionally knew you knew the probable consequences of what you're doing but you're intentionally recklessly or wantonly indifferent to that result i believe that would qualify the  but the actual definition of culpable negligence in north carolina is defined in criminal law is recklessness or carelessness proximately resulting in injury or death as imports a thoughtless disregard a which statute is now that is in the case of state early two thirty two north carolina seventy one seventy i was quoting a north carolina supreme court case by the way which case is that because it hasn't been quoted to us yet stay versus stand still i can tell you that we have quoted many of the cases in north carolina which has a totally different mens rea using the recklessness i this is from the supreme court i mean assume but it's pretty ok assuming that where the lawn north carolina you'd be in trouble right i've been troubled if there has to be an awareness of the risk yes probable consequences that's pretty well i would like to be able to have an opportunity to read this case it and to see if there's any way that i can justify it with the other the many other still the law and certainly the government has not made a claim that that that the standard in north carolina is broader than this consciousness of risk ok so let's get to the modified what we have in the record here that would in the north carolina conviction actually we submitted the judgment which just list involuntary manslaughter but there's no other facts in the government's ability absolutely nothing else you're faced with it's categorical or it's not because on rap of the judge and quite frankly unless you're going to create a circuit conflict with the me as a child and i don't think the government has provided any term criminal negligence in defining a base offense level but again to me as a child gives reasons why that definition shouldn't apply and the main reason is that just looking to whether or not what they define in one section doesn't control what the guidelines the fine and other interior clearly states how to conduct this categorical yes the purposes of easing the term involuntary manslaughter into a are completely different from what they would have been defining into out meaning under this because there are a lot of a simulated crimes they're looking for a definition that would cover all types negligent homicide so they would need something to incorporate the minority of the deal that mere negligence can support involuntary manslaughter conviction but that is not the majority view it's never been contested that we're negligence could be the the majority  and forget the other branch of it we don't know that's what happened with your first message from the record but their motor vehicle cases for the person has clearly gone over the line or gone much solution and in those cases of course you don't really have to do with anything but the fact he was violating the century right correct but i think you actually use the definition that they've been giving at least since one thousand fifty which carelessness and thoughtless disregard and if you put thoughtless disregard which is part of the law that's directly in conflict with conscious disregard which is required in the majority of jurisdiction i'm  one branch of involuntary the other involuntary as you knowingly violate a safety statute and that's good enough you don't need anything else but you know if you violate the statute well as long as one section of it is overbroad it's overbroad i'm with you saying the cases it seems to talk about the other possibilities are cases where the person did knowingly violated statute so our days focus of the case really dealt with something other than a safety violation thought was disregard if i had these cases like i could try but the government hasn't cited any or even made the argument that it requires a conscious risk ok i'll reserve the rest of my time to a one point two the involuntary manslaughter was manslaughter did fall within the definition of what a crime of violence is within the application that's due to a one point two to clarify the record in this case there was only the judgment and commitment that was submitted the judgment in commitment notes on page forty two of the supplemental excerpts of record that defendant acted under some strong provocation in this case omission on the part of the defendant it does appear although albeit we don't have a lot of information or very much information at all as far as what happened and what actions were taken it does show that there was some action or at least imply that there was some action taken by a defendant addressing the north carolina statute the culpable negligence standard appears to be more akin to the criminal negligence standard in section eleven twelve of the title eighteen which requires for manslaughter on unlawful killing without negligence or excuse me without malice without due caution in circumspection this is the same statute the language is that is the same as what the court addressed in the park case where the court found that the criminal negligence in that case the california model of california penal code section one hundred two b did constitute a crime of violence and the  the standard in the definitions in the case of case law for the couple bill negligent standards under north carolina law does fall in line more closely with part obviously as pointed out by counsel there is a wide variety in dominguez the chela points out that there is a number of states have different standards i think north carolina falling in the minority with ten other states arson in that case they look to the federal definition in this case the federal definition of involuntary manslaughter would include criminal negligence and to a one point four a  one clarifies the criminal negligence is the appropriate standard for a crime of violence for the manslaughter conviction and just based on the pla language of the the statute the conviction and the supporting guidelines under to a one point four that the government believes that this should fall that the negligent homicide i believe in texas is different than the standard is different the language of the the the standard is different like to make three brief points first regarding the federal statute the federal statute is the fine this is from the jury instructions that the defendant either knew that such conduct was a threat to the lives of others or knew of circumstances would recently cause defendant for see that such conduct might be a threat to the lives of others so there's still a min's re add knowledge requirement even in the federal statutes whereas in cal in north carolina assuming i'm right on the law  is that there's a button lessness involved meaning you didn't have to know anything in north carolina as to the california involuntary manslaughter statute this court has specifically held  those require a recklessness mens rea so everything is consistent with some type of knowledge or recklessness when dealing with involuntary manslaughter but in north carolina you don't have to have that and that's why it's overbro