anderson good morning your honor may please the court i'm good or henderson i'm here on behalf of stacey hard this is another case about statutory interpretation and and i think the court needs to not constitute the use of violence under the statute and you use the same words that the government and the district court of use which is this create action is create a risk of violence and that's what the courts and  the government and defense lawyers for years have been thinking about violence because this usually comes up in the crime of violence or violent felony context and those statutes do say something is violent if it contains the risk of violence if there's a potential risk of injury if there's a potential risk of violence that's not what this statute says though this statute says that it defendant must actively use violence in and well  police car to collide with that would not qualify that that is not using violence that is creating a risk of violence so what would it be using violence if he pulls out a hand gun shoots at an officer and mistress that would be a credible threat of violence serial because well so then why why isn't driving at high speed and doing whatever you think you need to do in order to get away equally or credible threat of violence well because you have to use a threat of violence and what we outlined in our reply brief is using a threat of violence means doing something that is telling somebody i am going to try to hurt you or i'm going to try to use violence against you it's not creating a risk of violence so in your example judge used to broke by pointing  firearm somebody and shooting them you are making a threat to them that you know i'm going to try to kill you i'm going to try to injure you that is using a threat of violence in connection with the offense but creating a risk of violence is not the use of violence and that's the difference between those two work definitions of the word threat to threaten somebody is different than to cause a threat of something and that's that's what for example the watson case out of supreme court emphasized was that using something in a bar transaction it's different than causing something to be used in a barter transaction and so if you cause a scenario in which there is a risk of violence or a risk that there will be a confrontation that's not the same thing as actually using violence or using a threat fire so that's that's what this statute requires and it makes sense in the grander statutory scheme and the scheme under the guidelines this is reckless endangerment during flight it is something that aggravates the crime it does make it more serious both under the guidelines and i think under the thirty five fifty three a factors i did does not constitute the actual active use of violence and i think that makes sense because what congress is worried about is violent drug offenders and violent drug offenders pose a greater risk than nonviolent drug offenders because they may in the course of their drug dealing inflict violence on others actually inflict actually use violence it is not for these types of cases where we have reckless behavior where we have negligent behavior where the defendant is not actually using violence against somebody or using a threat of violence to somebody or coerce somebody into doing something so we would ask the court to get here to the statutory language which is limited it's not about risk of violence it is about actually using violence and mr harding didn't use here this is not a simple reckless driving this is involving a chase by the police because the defendant took off while he my recollection and reading through the transcripts and i have to acknowledge that i wasn't there but my recollection is that he did make that finding but in any event that that is what happened he was involved in this collision as a result of this high speed chase and ultimately the u turn that occurred so i believe the district court was correct in determining you thank you mr clarke anything further mr henderson there were there wasn't all that much thank you very much the case was taken under advisement and the court will be in