text: and lower courts have uniformly adopted the same approach when comparing federal and state crimes in order to apply the federal statute.that law imposes mandatory life imprisonment on a person convicted on three separate occasions of a serious violent felony.c.sounding very much like the ina,the statute defines such a felony to include a federal or state offense,by whatever designation and wherever committed,consisting of specified crimes,murder,manslaughter,robbery as described in listed federal criminal statutes.c f.in deciding whether a state crime of conviction thus corresponds to an enumerated federal statute,every court to have faced the issue has ignored the statute jurisdictional element.see,united states,per curiam united states wicks.judge wood,writing for the seventh circuit,highlighted the phrase a federal or state offense,by whatever designation and wherever committed the law version of a penultimate sentence.it is hard to see why congress would have used this language,she reasoned,if it had meant that every detail of the federal offense,including its jurisdictional element,had to be replicated in the state offense.at.just so,too,in the ina whose aggravated felony provisions operate against,and rely on,an established legal backdrop distinguishing between jurisdictional and substantive elements 