conviction was not for of an offense with the same elements as an offense classified in illinois a classic style the federal offense of possession with intent to distribute is much broader than the class sex felony illinois it was kennedy and came down i would say well terry can't be square with the language another thing about terry actually but all three of these cases these are all rape cases the part which was rape it only changed the definition of probably you didn't have to break and enter you could just enter and then later shoplifter something but for day for federal purposes the prior burglary conviction had to be the classic generic breaking and entering so what happened to the cop was the ninth circuit said true these just don't have the same elements to california's broader but the conduct that defending mr to cop committed was the same such an eric burglary or offense but it was a plea case just like this one is and they looked at the proceedings said look the cop admitted to breaking and entering and so it's the same conduct we're going to allow that prior to victim to use and that's the reason i think that the state's making here and that's the reason it was rejected by the u s supreme court when they got to done for review to interpret to go against the plain language and create the six amendment it least tension with the six and i mean it's not an outright violation when when we don't need to the language is clear the defendant here under that to a eligibility to be sentenced as a habitual criminal for if it's the issue on appeal it is statutorily mandated forfeiture the onus from court and brown specifically said if the defendant fails to challenge in any way understanding that he wanted to trial that he went to sentencing in the be facing a natural life sentence this is forfeited both statutorily and then also in the more general forfeiture of failure to object failure to include in the post trial motions there is no way around that if he wants to raise this claim that he is not eligible for a proper remedy according to brown and sue the postcondition hearing it's not here on the direct appeal and i would add just for the since this claim wasn't even raising the original brief that the defendant had filed it was raised in the supplemental brief after act the cases of king taylor tyler and kennedy terry city came tearing kennedy all established what the statute means it the state has been amended numerous times by the legislature and they've never once under undermined or  those holdings in so there's clearly an understanding that when the statute says same elements that the the king and l sister terry nelson can e mail says allows the court to look at the circumstances of those convictions i understand what the cap says i understand what sheppard says but those as you pointed out your honor our statutory construction cases by the u s supreme court regarding a federal statute yes they said they had to reach their construction in order to avoid a what they perceive as a potential catfish worship but importantly it was a stash reconstruction is now binding and this court if we were talking in the absence of any precedent defendants i know might make sense but we're not we're talking about thirty years of of settled construction of the statute and so therefore there's no reason to ignore it in what we have here is we have a judge properly following that precedent finding that these that this offense met the statute properly imposing a sense of natural life transferred convict is convicted under an accountability basis of a multiple murder and faces an automatic natural life sentence in their case the only supreme court said that's the absence of individual licensing based on th convergence of those three factors those three statutes required and you would you would in your interpretation this point women reach to those circumstances but certainly some of the rationale in miller is applicable when when there is really no opportunity for a rehabilitation of someone who has not committed a violent act and here are we're not talking about a defendant who has led a life free of crime yes there's been no violent convictions but this is an individual who is committed to very serious offenses who has been sentenced to prison twice in neither of those instances has guilty in federal court in exchange for a seven and a half year sons and then shortly after his release from federal prison is when he commits the ensign offense here the legislature has recognized that these are is counsel said superclass x offenses these are serious offenses the scourge of drugs in our society and people like the defendant here who is a high level dealer pose a significant threat and so with that no showing of rehabilitative potential in order individual who should certainly should know better given every opportunity in the past i don't before trial what his our two ladies were it was entirely a choice of his to go to trial knowing what the risk was going to be i'm not going to deny that we made a very generous offer prior to trial much like we did with the co defendants and yet that was the choice the conscience when we talk about people we're not talking about an individual who's on the streets selling dime bags of cocaine we're selling it we're talking an individual who's transferring heroes of heroin and cocaine who's who's placing those into the system endangering again that calls into question whether our own constitution and illinois and its provision is as some have compared to reaches a in the limitations that have places upon the legislature are not synonymous with the eighth amendment and so that was the context in which they made that statement but they never once said that is a broader application or provides it a greater remedy of relief for individual as i  oftentimes respects mandamus cases coming out of twenty six feet many of them involving judge straight horn when he would frequently say we don't provide rehabilitative services so i can consider you've dealt a pencil the onus report has said repeatedly that the legislature factors rehabilitative potential and so therefore i just because it's it's not something that is frequent doesn't mean that it's unconstitutional and if there's no further questions to ask or to affirm the defendant's sentence affirms conviction thank you very higher here in the state is saying to him we will come off what is mandatory if you accept this it's not you know even if you were to assume that the former situation  was not forthcoming and so they said well you know then there's what what basis would they have even legally to say we're going to waive the provisions of what the after of after