five because of the fact that she had escaped your honor it was something that we can see on something we consider before filing the briefs however none of her good time credits were forfeited ms davi right after she was returned to the federal facility there was a disciplinary hearing on august twenty sixth two thousand and three and we attached the notes from that in our motion to supplement the record and during that hearing ms davis rice admitted that she had escaped from the camp and the disciplinary hearing officer made findings based on her admission and impose discipline of thirty day segregation as a consequence so i think that the  prisons would have forfeited her good time but it had a hearing and decided not to for that reason there's no documentation of any forfeiture and and i think at this point the government would have waived any arguments about forfeiture it was aware of the facts the hearing already preceded it and there was no good time forfeited with respect to the next issues your honor muse davis rice is entitled to the statutory good time credit towards her pretty good lines federal sentences at a rate of ten days per month i think it's undisputed that ms davis rice is entitled to some statutory good time credit towards those sentences and the question is how much credit is she entitled to based total time in custody is more than ten years so that the good time credits were it would be ten days per month under eighteen united states code section forty one sixty one which is the statute that the district court correctly held applies to the virgin islands sentence for purposes of whether she gets statutory time under the federal law that same statute provides that when two or more consecutive sentences are to be served that the aggregate should be the basis of the bureau of prisons also have policy statements that require it to aggregate the sentences and there's also case law not in the ninth circuit but other circuits that say that they should be aggregated for determining the good time credits so for the same reason that the court correctly applied forty one sixty one to the virgin xylem sentence for purposes of determining statutory good time credit the same statute should be applied for purposes of just turning aggregation now the district i believe incorrectly found that ms davis rice could not challenge how much good time credit she should get on the federal sentences because those sentences had already been served but the case  indicates that once sentences are aggregated they remain aggregated even after a prisoner finishes serving one of those sentences and so here even though ms davis was done with those sentences as long as the virgin island sentence  aggregated with those sentences we could go back and correct the good time question it's awarded on the federal sentences moreover the government says that ms davis rice's federal sentencing that invested the good time vested when she credit on those federal sentences and it was only after she completed those sentences that they then d aggregate it so as a matter of fairness if they can gate them after the sentences have been completed we certainly should be able to two thousand and ten the other issues your honour's is whether ms davis rice is entitled to the extra good time credits under the statute forty one sixty two towards her virgin islands sentenced i think it's undisputed that she gets those extra good time credits towards her federal sentences and it's just a question of ensuring that the bureau of prisons properly awards those and it didn't appear in the calculation sheets that we had but i think that there's not a dispute that that she's entitled to the major issue with respect to the extra big time credits and whether that statute forty one sixty two would apply to the virgin islands sentence and your honors for the same reasons that the district court correctly found that forty one sixty one applies to the virgin islands sentence for purposes of awarding statutory good time credits the companion statute forty one sixty two should also apply for purposes of determining extra good time credits in the district court the government had argued in fact it agreed that these statutes are companion statutes and the specific language in forty one the government the district court found that these claims were not exhausted and therefore that it was mandatory that they waived and there's a couple things with respect to that first ms davis rice did exhaust her remedies at the administrative level as she  but no more well she's in the federal prison correct your honor and for that reason is because the verge she's challenging what the bureau of prisons is now doing she has no requirement to go to the virgin islands and try and exhaust remedies with the problem is that there's a there's a basic issue of statutory interpretation here that governs that would govern more than this sentence and that involves quite a significant amount of time if if all of what petitioners asking for is granted so what i'd like to do that may be the main issue whether the good time interplay is between statutes forty one sixty one and five thousand and three of title eighteen forty one sixty one which provides the old law federal good time credit computations and the rule for aggregation applies by its own terms for offenses against the united states so that statute taken by itself would not apply here the way that it is looped in it's through five thousand and three see that's the statute that addresses contracts for borders from states and territories in into the bureau of prisons and that statute provides that that borders are subject to the rules and regulations of  of prisons as would other federal federal prisons be but it provides an important exception unless it would be inconsistent with the sentence imposed the problem with with what petitioner is asking for here i you think the ten day credit is it's good for people who are holding x number of years that that's a good thing but you think you're primitive treating people that you're you contract borders you're prevented from treating them in the same way as your other prisoners yes even though it says that all of your rules and regulations will be treated the same way unless inconsistent with the probably other cases but because it's old law and because it's contract with the virgin islands old law contract virgin islands is this it or is there like a big flood of cases so high certainly not in this part of the country simply because borders from the virgin islands very rarely come here so it does it doesn't matter but the contract is no longer in effect so they're no longer  these borders right so that they're very well could be state borders military borders district of columbia borders and as far as that i'm sure there are very many frankly but as far as  virgin islands borders what amount of difference are we talking about is it possible to quantify that i can do that generally the amount give us a ballpark i think it devolves harkins one year right  she's in her client is entitled to about two years and if you're right about one year if you were right if the district court affirmed it's i believe about ten months to a year that she gets but whatever the different tastes are you opposed to talking with the media trying to get to a point where you get some extra time from your point of view and where the government might they don't have to might give you some time and not get in the pit in that way because this tremendous disruption in our relations with the virgin islands we would do that you we have a little under two minutes to flee i'll talk quickly your honor your honors with respect to whether applying either forty one sixty one or forty one sixty two would be inconsistent with the sentence imposed which is the language under five years or three subsection c first of all in the district court the government took the position that the good time credits are not technically part of the sentence imposed so my view would be that they've waived that argument here moreover the ninth circuit has found in raines vs us pro commission that the good time credits do not reduce the sentence itself but only  period of incarceration so the fact that the sentencing judge imposes the sentence and then the bureau of prisons calculates how that's going to be done so good time credits i would say are not inconsistent with kept a morning good time credit honor one thing is that i'm not sure whether the district court made the distinction but to the extent that that was what the district court was indicating the cases that talk about exhaustion before the virgin islands which is the college case was actually challenging a parole eligibility date that the virgin islands department of corrections has imposed so in that case the petitioner was challenging the virgin islands