of the stresses of remote argument i'm sort of a softy if you need an extra minute or two you know you'll get it at the end but you should really try to wa dollars should be treated under the same legal framework applied to seventeen beat reduction cases and lastly the definition of a conviction is a separate conviction definition that does not provide support for the reference british or that case had been convicted of a felony or originally and that this court should look to the conviction initially and the sensors that could have been imposed initially for that felony offense this court rejected that line of reasoning in the harbor and then pages and found that there is a significant difference between the definition of a conviction which requires that finale and that consideration of you riginal facts in the absence and lack of historical is based on the finale of the conviction my father and garcia lopez are based on the absence of a chronology when it comes to sentence and the reason for these two differences in essence is that congress asked explicitly provided client's perspective so we have a federal system we've got various federal laws including me immigration laws and we have lots of different state los up which was later reversed with attorney general that says that because there is nothing in the language for sentence or the stated purpose to what exactly congress met with the use of the cases that this decision by the attorney general is dealing with the actual sentence where the state court does not provide a legal gives that to justify that reduction so the greed that is going to have an immigration impact in proceeding before things applicable here why is it none of it is not because congress has not done the necessary work to provide for the same conclusion in cases involving the finale of sentence the finale of conviction in iraq iraq congress took that additional step to find a conviction after the order struggled for more than fifty years to come up with a definition that would apply nationally congress has not acted in this case in the same way it did with the definition of a about whether those changes would have a prospective impact on how certain immigration statutes applied to particular aliens convicted under those statutes with this case is about as mr of alaska's reduces argument t applied retrospectively with reference to the maximum sentence available at the time of the conviction the statutory framework issued theirs is very similar to the statutory framework issue and needle and india  as you know the supreme court was looking at to interlochen provisions of the arm career criminal act one that said when it can she became relevant and another that defined what type of conviction was relevant the st one said when is a conviction relevant when the defendant has three previous convictions and the nd statute says what kind of convictions are older ones for which the maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by law and this is cream court said it doesn't matter that the nd of those two statutes uses the present one to determine when a conviction was relevant and one it defined what type of conviction was relevant when is a conviction relevant under the controlled substances act provision issue there when two or more prior convictions have become final what kind of convictions are relevant ones  offenses which are punishable by imprisonment for more than one year and this court said india as again that framework is inherently backward looking it's an inherently looking at prior convictions that's why we use the law in effect at the time of conviction and determine what kind of sense is going to have been had then as a matter of historical fact and this court said and i quote even if california decided to give proposition forty seven retroactive effect for purposes of its own state law that would not retroactively meet the defendant's felony conviction in this year for purposes of federal law because the federal laws issue explicitly told us when they apply when a defendant commits a federal drug offense after being convicted of  imposition of a punishment penalty or restraint historical facts that can be changed by parliament legislation and liking that meal and india as those provisions were in two separate statute that defines what kind of offenses we're looking at for purposes of this contours of a prior conviction what actually happened in the past and subsequent legislation just can't change those actually two point five times it's actually not a time machine it can't change what actually happened in two thousand through the time  two even for that particular statute this court has repeatedly in published decisions interpreted it as looking at what the maximum sentence could have been at the time of conviction in sauron this court was looking at a similar  the state court could have imposed a sense of one year longer in men seated elephant in other published opinion this court was looking at conspiracy statute under nevada law and it said that that statute gross misdemeanor published at that time and the offense having never previously been categorized as a felony or misdemeanor the trial judge said i'm going to call it now it's a mr immigration statutes didn't give a fax to that later changed i that trial judge we don't have new facts that flesh out the contours of the actual convictions the immigration laws needs to credit all we have is a statute that california is free to implement for its own purposes and that may apply prospectively but if we apply it retrospectively or it was correct no but that's just a question of changing how federal law applies to historical facts and this court has said supreme court has said if you don't do that the reasoning there absolutely controls and to judge rules pointed out are the rule of this statute in a federalist system i think that's that's a very opposite point here and that augurs strongly against mr glascock is rio's has proposed application of the statute this court repeatedly noted the importance of national uniformity in the application of federal law and in particular with respect to immigration law and as noted furthermore not just with the regime of it particularly regarding the ironies treatment of past convictions a his counsel himself identify just a moment ago the reason we have an eye on a definition of conviction is because congress was particularly interested in and particularly focused on standardizing to the extent possible the i defendants who were convicted in the same state truck or on the same day of the same offense and sentenced similarly under the law as it exists now is the board interpreted those two defendants whenever they were placed in removal proceedings would have the immigration removal proceedings and if there had been an intervening legislative change like california penal code section eighteen five that produces constitutional problems how is the defense council supposed to advise their client on the possible immigration consequences of a guilty plea as the supreme court in india and this court have held and defense counsel is constitutionally obligated to do certainly that can be difficult you complexities of immigration law but it would be point out that applying is usually the determining the immigration consequences of a past conviction based on the law in effect at the time of their action is a bill that's the one course in the more applied today makes sense m different time points that's effectively through different times we have to assess that prior convictions the consequences the very uncertainty there makes that rule unworkable invites endless repetitive litigation every time the prior effect of the prior conviction and there's not going to be a rule to really clarify how it works and i also propose an additional hypothetical suppose unlike the somewhat sympathetic facts in this case suppose that and a state works you raise  effective just for its own purposes but is also effective to change how federal law applies settled prior facts the next case that this court faces on that issue may involve exactly that concern and you have to grapple with this actually goes back to a question whereas th refused to do exactly what the government has asked us for to do to disregard the statute to disregard the language of the statute and that is completely unacceptable under this court's press that including the supreme court's prior decisions the supreme immigration or proceedings that we need to look to the narrowest possible interpretation of the statute in the cesspit what is the proper interpretation and application of that code section counsel addresses the court about when this trigger in effect will take place when will the court have to decide what is the possible sentence that could be opposed congress has done that in other parts of the app with regards to good moral character we looked at were state eaters by statute it provides for these different triggers when that is to take place here congress has failed to do that and the court the board should not be permitted to simply implement its own policy reasons its own desire for uniformity to address this we follow supreme court precedent and look at the lane which of the statute and the context and historical perspective of that statute the government should not be permitted to take quotes from other cases that simply say federal lawsuits from federal law be respected and applied by the b s a in these kind of cases and yes this court your honor such poor if i may quote the statement from your decision you stated that the language that provides for that specific