thank you under may please the court michael marks central defenders of san diego for mr some doubts the district court in this case miscalculated the guidelines and says the seven to thirteen guidelines that should've applied to the grades the violation with what we agree on that the there is an unambiguous judgment in unambiguous and in order in this case that's consistent with the district court's or over ruling that the allegation that was sustained was allegation four and the government concedes that allegation four was is a great sea violation not a grade b violation and the government is i think attempting to lure the court into a discussion of whether or not but the judgement is wrong and it simply no reason to revisit that and the first the most obvious reason is they had a chance to do that alone they didn't there was a very committed order i get them all the time there's in the c s order that you get an e mail that says this is what happened in this looked at it but they certainly didn't request that it be changed or amend it because appeals to the court process feel our appeal and said you know there was there was a problem here this judgement is incorrect or that the judge the judge should have should have in fact sustained allegation three but they didn't do that and so now for the first time in their response they're saying well no there was a clerical error the judge actually got that wrong and that's it's interesting with the record that was laid before the district but at the during the hearing before the district court the defendant's counsel agree with the district court after the district court determined that the violation constitute a grave the violation and counsel didn't crack the district court that if you only sustain allegations for them it's not a great the violation does not affect further what he meant by that but even under opinion or senator review we prevail there's really an abundance of cases say where where there's a straightforward dive mind application such as this or that was deported and then he really entered i think that the government could have gotten there fairly easily but they didn't what happened is the adventure here is the government introduce had entered the united states on july two thousand and twelve and then they had a file custodian the border patrol agent that has possession of the file and all the documents in it and out of all of those documents what they chose to present was evidence that mr sunday had had been removed ordered removed and then removed after he had entered and the thirteen twenty six violation of course requires proof that removal before he had entered after the close of evidence and after everyone submitted the government counsel did say will judge you can you can take you just will notice of the fact that he has the prior removal and he has a part of deportation and that's all you can you can take you to solo so that the evidence is closed at that point and the judge never did take you to the sabbat and so while i think the evidence in a sense might be out there it wasn't presented at the evidentiary hearing and i think the court held the government to that and the reason that that i think we know that from the record if there were not an unambiguous judgment and minute order then the court might have the opportunity to go back and figure out what is the district court actually mean that's the court case in line what it said is really dicked up but that if everything is ambiguous of course we're going to try and figure out what the judge was thinking but here we have an unambiguous judgment on that that says this was allegation for not allegation three and so i really there's no reason for us to go back and say what did the court do and i don't think that it would be too much for this court to require a district court to state on the record clearly i'm sustaining this allegation and not this one or both allegations i don't think that's particularly cumbersome for the district court i think that's what they do all the time and perhaps that's what the district court thought he was doing in this case it doesn't come off on the record he doesn't express the faith i think everyone is in agreement that it was allegation for not allegation three but luckily we do have the unambiguous judgment that that the judge when there is a ruling in the court in front of the defendant and a judgment that are that are different the court does look to the original intent of the district court in its oral judgment and that stays in th discussions during the evidentiary portions anderson what would you what would you point as to that so clear in the oral discussion i mean he didn't say i find allegation three and four he didn't say anything however there are numerous points in the in the proceedings which so that the government did provide evidence that so is the priority port and this is because of the question point me to what the judge said that we should rely upon six allegation however at that time the court does state at the exports of record twenty nine that had previously ordered the defendant to stay outside the united states and it does look to th the oral judgment pronounced in front of the defendant in his presence is the one that controls and the judge at that time when very clear and the record at page thirty and thirty six and during sentencing that he found this to be a great a violation with a range of eighteen to twenty four and at no point for the defendant object to that in fact he actually agreed to that sentencing range but the the dischord never sad and sustaining allegation that's correct your honor and i thought there was an error in the probation office report where they indicated that both violations were going to be violation that may have prompted the error in the first place there i said look at the petition and there's nothing to be error in the last and then the second supervisory violation he had asked in fact come back time and time again after deportation and he did have the documents that the government provided which showed a prior the port of may fourth two thousand twelve so specific allegation that pertains just a few quick things i did want to point the court to one more quote from o'brien that the government has cited it says it's a clear moral sentence it's a clear moral sentence is pronounced in court that must control over any subsequent clarification or modification if however the oral pronouncement is and to give us we're open to reasonable interpretation as appellant and contends here it cannot possibly control a truly invade us pronouncement can provide no guidance and that's what that's what happened here and i think that the what the government is pointing to and o'brien is is the comment that that court makes that if there is an ambiguity in the judgment then we've got to figure out what happened so we can look at that the entire very high argument on that point