you seeking to withdraw your id that will probably be the ultimate result i know that that the case my on this is not really clear but in the one case that really addresses this united states states versus gibson he actually that defendant actually did withdraw his plea mr word then is aware of that result and is aware of that remedy so because our argument is that absolutely mr more than understands that risk as it stands now he's serving sixty years in prison and so it's a little bit of a toss up of how much worse it could get for him which was sixty years was actually expectancy therefore is lower so it's likely that no matter what it is a life sentence so he understands the possibility in this case of adverse an adverse outcome doubt for is ten years so it's twenty years and then ten years for his nine twenty two you i believe that's a ten year so it's a thirty year max rather than sixty if we're successful our nine twenty four j argument of course we're reading the one twenty four j argument it course refers to nine twenty four seasons essentially the same argument the underlying offense is how jack robbery and first reevaluated the elements clause under subsection c three eight hundred twenty four c three a which requires that the conviction have an s n l n of the use attempted use or threatened use of physical force against person or property were you that hasek robbery does is broader than that is and has been interpreted by this court in many other courts broader than to include fear of injury including fear injury to reputation which would not be the use attempted use or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another it can the fourth circuit agreed and tourism a or the right to conduct a lawful business the fourth circuit and the second circuit have held that robbery isn't a crime of violence under nine twenty four c three a although the second circuit's jones case which  that he did so by means of robbery the victim part of the money because of the robbery and it affected interstate commerce that then goes down to define robbery as an unlawful taking from a person against his well that portion is what distinguishes robbery from extortion so extortion requires that the victim gives consent for the property to be taken whereas in robbery it's against the victim's well then as we argue aftermath s and this was another case that of a list of means rather than a list of elements if you look just as the elements there is no violence there so we believe that it does not qualify under the elements cause of nine hundred four c three a now there have been some state and statements and findings by other court that robbery always qualifies as a crime of violence and i believe that that is too broad and bleeds into what is the residual clause analysis for a quote ordinary case so they're treating robbery as the quote ordinary case which is from james versus united states supreme court case from the year that i don't remember that described how to apply the residual clause looking to what an ordinary case adds that language was specifically question and johnson with the two thousand and fifteen johnson case and one of the reasons the language was found to be vague and i'm constitutionally bank since it doesn't call fight under the elements prong we also argue that it doesn't qualify under the residual clause this issue as was argued by prior turning right before me is constantly changing i feel like i have daily alerts about is not a sensing statute that it does not qualify however the vagueness doctrine does not simply apply to the type of statute applies to the language in the language being the same this your honors they please the court bob what on behalf of the government i'd like to start picking up on something the opponent said she said that the second circuit for circuit of help the house a cropper is not a crime of violence for circuit cases one that was discussed a lot of government second circus recent decision in hill but also that decision has been vacated in withdrawn from the federal reporter so i can't imagine that it would be good precedent at this point it's not on westlaw or anything  so really there are no cases that i think are still viable that have held that object robbery is not a crime of violence in fact the real weight of caseload is when you look at whether courts have said that hasek driver it whether or not  robbery cases and so i don't think it really speaks to objects to the elements of the like robbery story more difficult to prove crime it's got different elements so to the extent that the court is supposed to look at whether or not it's or there's a realistic problem probability or possibility that there will be a prosecution perhaps like robbery for that sort of thing there may be but there are no cases that i'm aware of where that's happened and on that point i would point the court to this court's recent decision in duncan where the panel explained that the kind of ordinary case you have to look to really should exclude a hypothetical like that and also the second point on this is i didn't want to make too much of this because i do think that something either johnson one of the two those ten johnsons definition of physical force does apply here or something close to it applies to difference of course is that decision didn't cover property because property is something that's different about the fourth clause in this case than in the aca and if the supreme court of this court were to confront how force it works with respect to property i'm not sure that the the definition the johnson one supplies a simple injury or pain would be immediately workable there would have to be some kind of wrestling with w whether and to what extent i'm sure that johnson one would provide a really nice foundation for the meaning of physical force in one thousand three hundred forty three but it probably wouldn't be exactly the same because the property component and i say that in response to suit your honest question about repetition because there are these hypothetical possibilities about threats to intangible property but again none of those is in the research i've done none of those is apparent in the case law survey not the ordinary case so i guess that's my two fold response to that question the second thing i'd like you because in another appeal we will be hearing today and that's the last case today the government conceded that more i think they did that brief that it may be do does a ball into robberies committed by actual or threatened force and those committed by fear of injury under mathis these are means of committing the crime not different elements of that aren't are they not your honor i would readily concede that the space that that i gave that the briefer flexed strength i see in the argument i don't  this and i more than anything to be quite honest want to not to forgo the argument i think that it doesn't really matter in the end categorically object robbery is always has a force element and many cour element of robberies opposed to one of the me committee well i just start by reiterating that courts said three years that including this court and i mean it's not in but in the biggest case said that force is an element of object property from two thousand and eleven and i'm happy to of course provide that decision to the court in a letter but also if you take out the force element object robbery becomes theft if pickpocketing would qualify and i don't think any court would accept that object robbery robbery covers that kind of prosecution so even though i i really do agree with your honor's suggestion that this strange  disjunctive list doesn't look like what we're used to as an element of a crime courts have routinely over the years said hobbs act proper just you you're not going to survive a sufficiency challenge if you don't have force and  the way it best way perhaps articulate that course again i might look at this court's recent decision and duncan where the court said you know in the least of these in the in the fear context the fear is fear of injury and that injury equates right back to the way the supreme court articulated force and johnson won as something people causing an injury and so and also you can just look at it in the terms of th court's jury instructions the court says the elements the government has to establish include taking by means of robbery of course robbery is called a means and that formulation but i don't think anyone would say that it is a means and not an element that is of course an element so the words don't have telepathic value and i don't think mathis said they did and then of course rubber needs a meaning so the jury instruction going to provide that meeting and that and a necessary showing the government always has to show one of those things force force violence or fear of injury and that fear of injury as again numerous courts have  courts of appeals are withholding a lot of cases based on the granting back rolls and d m i add and i think the analysis in john's because john's interpreted in new york statute that served as the basis for the hobbs act is is credible here interesting lee worded and we believe falls within the math as analysis of elements versus means one you know i think the courts are going towards upholding both object reveries a kind of violence and one twenty four c is not that means that's what they mean and we need to work with math with math as in the hobbs act robbery falls within that mathis framework so much the court has further questions all the back in a couple cases talk about a big thank you thank you