called the ashcroft clarified what is required for a crime to constitute a crime of violence and that's an aggravated felony and the supreme court in land called the ashcroft emphasized that crime violence are met by congress to encompass only a narrow range of crimes which include active physical violence against another that's simply not the type of statute that we have before us innovating an officer of aiding an officer required add that the risk that someone or someone's property might be harmed not the risk that a person will have to actively used violence against another for that reason later called the greater than negligence now in this case is dating an officer does not include such a man element of the government in story things focuses on the fact that the actual text of a dating an officer refers to a w the california legislature has defined willful or wanton as among other things committing three traffic violations or damaging property in the course of dating an officer this does not constitute a mens rea of greater than negligence accordingly of aiding an officer cannot constitute an aggravated felony a crime of violence under the code pursuant to langkawi ashcroft for those two reasons the government has also conceded in it judicial body that it does not control the over the actual judgment and that they are subjects to reduce and modification for clerical error the court noted that it is more likely that something written on an abstract of abstract or a judgment in some circumstances under the modified categorical approach the abstract of judgment in this case do nothing to clarify the circumstances under which mr benoliel are was convicted and thus are still of no help to this court under the modified categorical approach and the president this court can only look to any information under the modified categorical approach if there is something in the record which shows the court that the conditions are actually slight guilty as charged in the information we have can lead to damaging up some property thus the information doesn't help us on that count as to unlawful taking of a vehicle although the information itself does state that he did unlawfully drive or take a certain vehicle under vehicle we just can't determine that from this record so what the information's now limb and eliminated your honor the only document left in the record is the probation officer's report and the government conceded in its brief probation officer report cannot properly be considered under the modified categorical approach either with honor then left with nothing in the record which can a miss corke in a review under the modified categorical approach the government has thus not only not met its burden of violations  properly convicted of a of a crime of of the theft offense based on the felony complaint and the after judgment i do realize that there is an argument with regard to the fact that that and aiding and abetting has a need to be  most the law moves in mysterious ways over the record there are two separate convictions in the record one of which involves both unlawful taking of a vehicle and evading an officer and one of which involves only unlawful taking a vehicle that's where some of the confusion over the page numbers is coming from without involving any great danger to anyone the court simply determines that was irrelevant for the analysis it was undertaking that's exactly what's relevant here under the categorical approach so people the school does not help the government send a physician that evading an officer is not a crime of violence second your honor the government relies heavily on the existence of the judgment it refers to a judgment in this case however we don't have a judgment here we have an abstract of judgment a clerical not judicial document