in other words a guilty plea does not bar a claimant you know where on the face of the record the court had no power to entertain the can generate the conviction or impose its mr pritchett or checks case presents just such an issue to get around our recent decisions in oliver and wheeler that essentially say this is not a constitutional challenge it's challenging a statutory construction of the elements and therefore it's been waived your honor there are a couple of things to note st of all in all over i believe that the defendant had a broad appeal which would extend to cover even constitutional or you know other statutory challenges this case and that was about sorry to interrupt miserably and that was at the basis of the court's decision that it was bro basis of the court's decision was distinguishing between what is a true constitutional argument versus what is a statutory construction arguments yes your honor i have and i didn't but i do know that addresses this point and and my opening really drew from their rationale i asked you know are you are you saying and asking us to overrule wheeler in element are you saying they were wrongly decided given class or  hard that being that part of this statute is unconstitutional much as it has been decided that this point but the i where the other component is that that and you know because of this transitional problem then you do have someone committed a criminal offense in other words well what passage in class suggests that in elements clause claim survives in the face of a plea like this well  a statutory a crime under the statute under the law and because davis has retroactive that johnson and the the several just retroactive affect the court never had the a crime of violence no of course that does inflict a the statutory construction principles that this court has done that before we've seen the court do that in connection with the ba of the twenty to fifty five being written pro se was is relatively general but he challenge the police basically and i think i looked at i honestly don't see one word about the guilty plea you know c charge the defendant waived the argument that he now makes that soliciting the murder for hire is not a crime of violence under the elements clause this conclusion is compelled by this court's decision in voluntary it wasn't of the law and it was in this case to just bite the defendant's claim on appeal that his plea was involuntary the defendant at no point in the twenty dollars to fifty five dollars proceedings allow pleas was involuntary that makes sense because that claim would not have matched the claim made and the relief such this is not like a case where the factual basis of the plea was missing a key element the district court in other words he seeks a chance to share and the legal sufficiency of the one hundred and twenty four dollars c charge in light of the lack of a residual clause and that's the relief that he needed to have sought before he entered the guilty  appeal and collateral relief rights but we were just not in the court and we were extended the feeling and to the law to generally posit that the guilty plea itself constitutes a sufficient waiver of the underlying sta claim with respect to the post davis position that it would not qualify under the elements clause if the court has no questions for the government the government would ask that it affirm the judgment of the district court supreme court me would ninety seven percent of federal criminal defendants would have no basis for relief when there's a retroactive decision because ninety seven percent is guilty  and so we would be so honest on the flip side we would be creating incentives for people to go to trial where the lies clear just to preserve the an issue clear you know that in in to the factual basis of his crime daft he was headed go to trial presumably to preserve any potential issue and even then the government would likely argue that he had waived this argument because he had not