was not convicted of a crime therefore the background check that was prepared by defendant yardy which disclosed criminal history from over twenty years ago was unlawful reporting act the entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant yardy was improper because missile dacosta consumer report was inaccurate and misleading and the district court failed to address these issue this court to adopt a reasonable and commonsense definition for the term conviction that is formal and final judgment in a criminal matter it must be  but the remember is we need seems to me to deal with you you want to skip straight to purpose but the supreme court these days says that federal statutes meaning a federal when determining whether or not an individual should be granted a license for it got no i don't want to deal with the word conviction is there any actual difference between the word conviction maybe there's something about the cont i'm not really interested in whether there was other language you know in twenty one this well i think we have to address the purpose of both statutes we have to address text and context if we're to be faithful to the supreme court's methodology you can't just throw them out and turn to purpose because when you turn the purpose you get back only one forty and which is to say you get a mirror image of your own for i really would like you to deal with textual context if you can't understanding of what the law is and leavin have to interfere in context with you know a kind of the common core of the burglary and so forth but the question what is the content that uniform federal law is a different question there could just be a federal definition saying as far as we're concerned the minute you're arrested you've been convicted or you could say i only ran a formal conviction and eating all of the standards of the prosecuting jurisdiction has been entered would there be a conviction you could have something in between once there's a guilty plea even if the case gets no prost after that we still think they're going to there are lots of different saying there's a uniform federal rule is actually the beginning of the discussion not the end of the discussion and there are in the in the context you're saying that the gun law may have one set of one thing it wants it's a rule and i'm going to ask your opponent about this that needs to be relatively easy for credit reporting agencies to administer and if they're digging around into th of every state of conviction they're going to make a lot of mistakes the rule that you're arguing for is a standard which is that you've got to be able to go to a docket and c e o judgment of conviction entered might be easier to administer yes i would agree with that and that is exactly what we're proposing is that we adopt a definition or a standard for what does this conviction mean i'm not arguing necessarily that we stop to look at state watch what i'm saying and state law can help us interpret those criminal docket but what we would like to see is that this phrase convictions of crimes includes this final judgment this is what is the last thing that happened in a criminal case pants what should be reported this would ensure that consumer reporting agencies looked at the case as a whole and not simply one docket entry because a guilty plea does not make it a conviction a procedural history in external cases does not make a conviction it is the there are several instances where we are where federal statutes are interpreted using that that's what you would need to do i mean if if there were forced out shoots in which the term conviction was interpreted the way the know has there been cases where courts have said the context matters that the context of what the statute is using the conviction for makes a difference ye by law but then you get later illinois supreme court decisions that say no judgment of conviction is entered in this instance right there is that there is a financial amount of support from the state of illinois regarding whether or not a supervision order supervision is actually and other states may have similar rules which takes us back to you know whether we have well is there a uniform federal  but what is its content is its content borrow from the various states if somebody gets a traffic ticket in nebraska or sorry somebody gets a traffic ticket maybe in colorado for marijuana which i don't think they even get that at this point but maybe hypothesize and they get a felony in the next state are they both convictions even though state law or treaty undermine behavior quite differently which is precisely why i would like the support to leaving open the possibility i would say the withdrawal of the guilty plea leaving open the possibility of the prosecution being dropped altogether so a non prosecution decision whatever it's called locally leaving open the possibility that there would be a superseding indictment with greater charges there's just somebody stands up there and says you know i did x guilty plea and the court says thank you very much proceedings adjourned is that an adjudication of guilt in your view i wouldn't think that it is your honor and the reason there is because just because i made a guilty plea doesn't word conviction in a federal statute which is why i'm turning to dickerson if we go to illinois we would presumably turn to the decision of the supreme court of illinois which be nicer to them and say the illinois supreme court seems to care about what this prior history is being put to and certainly for recidivism the federal sentencing guidelines also make it very clear that the kind of conviction something where there was a judgment that everybody would agree is a conviction is expunged it doesn't count anymore for purposes of the fair credit reporting act is that correct i don't think that we concede that your hon she had looked at what other federal statutes do about problems and that might help now one other federal statute dealing with this problem is immigration cases where there's been a conviction telling you again that i don't find that statement useful at all the question is what's the content of the ground rule definition some federal definitions borrow from state law sometimes they borrow wholesale the civil rights law so so we need to know what is federal law are doing here and also you know again i was trying to come up with some kind of continuum so you're saying now i'm going to read you know not the guilty plea where the judge says you know matter is continued for six months maybe yes a guilty plea if the judge says i hereby accept your guilty plea and i'm ordering a pre sentence report personnel to do that whereas especially these days with electronic records finding out if there's a judgment of conviction entered it would be extraordinarily straightforward i think that one too to address sort of the efficiencies in credit checks if you are correct we are a system in place right now in the united states where a credit card application and housing application and employment applications can be processed in a matter of minutes  and that's the fundamental one of the fundamental premises of the fair credit reporting that was a uniform nation wide application of credit losses and to make sure that we have a system of credit housing employment in this country that moves forward as expeditiously as yes i mean that's fine and i'm and i'm curious meaning you know your business why you would want to adopt such a cumbersome approach you know that thirty three thousand about ten thousand turn out to require further investigation i think that so that's up to the the landlord to decide whether they permit people for instance who have a battery conviction on their record to or a battery accusation or that record or any battery charge  there was the gaps that you may be confusing six months of supervision for sixteen months which you know potential landlord might consider material except in this case the landlord never sees that information so it's completely immaterial in the sense because what happens is this record comes through and then applies it's the criteria that have been set by the only in the works and literally just gives the landlord a thumbs up one of them is down as to whether the conviction you can state it as many times over if you want and we just spent the last half hour you know exploring what it might mean and so i'm not sure i'm not really help context the whole different thing you know why what what's the structure of this law has set out i trying to do in this law clearly trying to do two things this law has accurate credit reporting at its center there's the seven years you know anything goes for the seven years there's a limit there's a conflict basically between the consumers interest and the reporters interest here in the last strike the balance and so we're trying to figure out with this point you know what i s the balance congress has created i think that at the very minimum congress is concerned with the uniformed nationwide application of the rule which means that it can't look to any of the particular texas they are still going to have convictions for marijuana you take what the state has criminalized indeed you have to because if a person is unwilling to abide by the laws of the place where they live that's an important fact to know so you can't actually get rid of state law quite that easily and i think that that's actually what we agree with that very much this reflects on whether a person is able to comply with the laws of the jurisdiction in which they're a it in light of what we're supreme or we've been we've been talking about where the law incorporates people i'm sure you remember it was only a few years ago in the windsor case the supreme court held that the federal government matter of federal law to refer to state all have you given any thought to those criteria the article looking at windsor maybe i think that we had  think you're a small amount of time not a particular disposition should be reported i think i think you'll have to wrap up now thank you thank you very much all right thanks to both counsel can take