or anything that i really necessarily need to respond to that the government wrote so i would be open to questions other than that i would submit the first time i've had someone asked to go back and be sensed by judge real understand that judge and  consulted your client but frankly if i'm a defendant in that position what i have to gain kind of pales in comparison with what i have to lose and be very specific about this judge real is not known for leniency in every instance so  if you have reason to think your client might not want to pursue that element or you think there might be reason to check that may be able to tell us because otherwise he does face the prospect if you succeeds in that argument of having to go back within a few with the court when he was being sentenced that he was with his wife and he's going to his house once he got incarcerated and that was the reason for his appeal which we seem to have a choice here on this issue whether the original sentencing judge absolutely and i've looked and i know that the government looked as well as to a sense that addresses that issue and it's that little paragraph at the bottom of the transfer order that he crossed out that provided us with that thing it appears to be an open question sort of looking at this as we must from a system wide point of view in the interest of justice which is the better rule the rule that allows the original sentencing judge to retain sentencing jurisdiction or one that says you can if you transfer if you're in for a pound you're in for a penny in for a penny in for a pound etc is a better to have a rule that says no you can't do that if you got a transfer it all has to go we understand your points position you've stated here orally and very well in your breeze but from a system point of view which rule makes more sense and i think that some level perhaps a district court that had a had a defendant that they were concerned about one way or the other should maybe be able to retain that jurisdiction when a client moved thousand and by i think that that was the one thing that struck me about i guess their case the t it out of oregon and it talks about this issue in that case he was supervision which here he goes or again he gets caught up in on something and then the judge takes the whole matter to oregon for obvious judicial economy i think you just feel funny served by wherever he is being supervised he stay there rather than having the defendant everybody bounce around from court to court so i but at the same time i understand the district court judge the district court judges desire maybe to keep their finger on certain defendants if they still need it now whether this maybe it should be a separate order in and of itself that explicitly lays out the reasons to retain jurisdiction as one side of the argument favors the individual independence of district judges which we all honor and respect the other has a lot to do with judicial economy doesn't it does and especially when you have you know if he's in new jersey in the sense here i mean it have those people that come before them that they are very concerned about the safety of the public or it's a favorite if you will and i don't mean to use that term lightly that they want that they want to do you know they want to keep their finger in front on and maybe that would be a separate that but if there's going to be a violation i want to hear about it because i want to take some personal responsibility for your rehabilitation now that's a motive that's one side of the coin this judge hakan says transfer pursuant to the statutes on the face of it the deletion of the sentence seems to be meaningless as as you presented the statute and frankly as i read it does seem to be meaningless and yet the form is set it up to suggest to the sentencing judge you can take this out of that and you still retain something what is right i understand that and i tend to agree with you that it is a meaningless sentence under the statute well the statute says doesn't say the need for it has exclusive let me know what happens let me know what goes on of the senses things or get some sort of hearing so at that point judge carroll then becomes a functional functionary for conducts the hearing at the disposition hearing the defendant comes judge who's a visiting judge i mean this is the sort of arrangement actually does happen in other jurisdictions in various forms where you have certain types of activities administered by one district court and others but they also not censor  the court to retain jurisdiction so it can dispose of the matter if it feels it is the proper court to do so are appropriate ask whether you have you contacted judge real to see whether or not he was an interested party in this case i don't know that perhaps not because i think that the reading of the reading of that could be that that would be a shortening of the time of patience which is what the issue was i get the probation from california actually came in  consent that's what it says in the transcript i have no knowledge again and i guess it's my fault as well for not talking to the contacting judge on this issue but what was the purpose of this and we had this year say from the formation officer in law that it i don't know that the revocation initial sentence is necessarily modification of that original ok thank you both for your argument the case just argued will be submitted for decision will proceed to the last case on the argument calendar this morning which is the united states versus hand