next motion for argument is united states versus russia quote i don't believe council has arrived yet the procedure the ordinary day calendar and take the motion at the end while here sessions number seventeen six six one single sentence for all the often says of which the accused was found guilty and if you have multiple counts what kind of evidence or review might be available to desegregate the the military judge simply does not have the the latitude and the discretion to the word consecutive sentences and circumstances in which you know for example if presided and sentenced to sixteen months and he had the four counts would we be entitled presume that they were that at least one was over a year no no because if i may if you look for the military decision the and say listen we really need to understand for these other purposes how you thought about it i how you accumulate the sentence is there any you know if they explained well you know we thought maybe it was ten months for this and fifteen months for that you always remain and i'm asking you why would we remain at least to let them look at those two other classes the two thousand offenses do not take away from the legal permanent resident the ability to apply for a waiver and also worse if  be i have not yet ruled on that so if we were to agree with you for example about the desegregation of the unitary sentence that it's not possible still the b i a would be entitled to rule on whether one of his crimes a conviction still confused if we were to agree with you that you can't look at a unitary sentence and desegregate it and say that one of the offices of conviction is an aggravated felony because the sentence was over one year in light of what the military will say about unitary sentences isn't there nonetheless an open question as to whether your client was convicted of a crime involving turpitude that the b i to stand that i understand you have an issue and you've told us what it is but they say there are other issues in that case then why didn't decide those issues when they had the opportunity they had the opportunity potentially grounds that would support the government's position right right but over and the i g didn't get that they didn't think they needed it so they put it to the side and didn't deal with it correct right and so why shouldn't if we agree with you about the military justice sentence why shouldn't it then just go back to the and they can determine whether these other grounds are sufficient because if it goes back to the to have to depends how they're meant to structure if they're meant to structure to go into address those issues and then and then you make a substantive ruling on the issue presented here then i wouldn't propose to their men but if if there is to for the thank you your honor may it please the court matthew george for the attorney general i want to make a quick point i'm not sure that we would agree with my pony's statement about the court not having to defer to the board's interpretation of military law i don't know that that big issue in this case but i think the court would not to for necessarily to the courts of the board's interpretation of military law in the same way it would not defer to the board's interpretation of state criminal law that's neither here nor there really for have run it by we have a number of jag for former jag officers and in our office i've run this every which way by everyone i can i don't see a way that this military sense is in any way a portion of will to the individual know you can i'm sorry please go ahead you're not seeking remained to reopen the record to see if there is a way to tease out what the sentence was for that particular larceny count on one hand we're not i kind of phrased it the way i did in the motion and in our brief just to give the go i don't want to necessarily bind the government in a way that i don't have to but i'm on the record that would  on twelve months for one count six for another fourteen for the third no your honor i agree that military senses are unitary and there's no way to to apportion and that seems to be and is there any are you hoping to reopen the difficult this is an odd for position for me to begin it's difficult for me to actually say it's wrong or something like that but i think the reality is on the military sense it's not a portion of that that issue is essentially over but as the court has pointed out there still is the issue of the crime involving moral turpitude that the agency set aside thinking that the aggravated felony issue was that was sufficient and so that issue is still there and that's really the basis of our remaining with that's what we think the agency needs to have the first look at now that if a military sentence was more than four years on four counts would that suffice to show that at least one county has more than one year under the precedent and rules and things i've looked at  for this case i would have to say no i don't think it's possible that after the order to house in the sentences five years isn't one of them have to be at least one year i don't think we can say that based on what the supreme court instead of this is going to terry notion i years would if i knew your honor i would i would say i just i just don't know i don't i'm not familiar with how they're calculated or it appears that they can't be apportioned so even if it was one hundred years i don't know that we can say this is definitely more than a year because we simply don't know how it is this is but you could say at least one of them is right i don't know if we could go that far i just don't i don't know why not all of the counts here are larceny counts on statute would you agree with that i think that's right is hard to reject i haven't seen anything definitive from the agency i don't know how many courts martial cases they see this maybe even for example the second one ever i don't know given that the first one being the third circuit one i've i'll say i've been at this office for approximately ten years this is the first time i've seen a courts martial case that's how so i i don't know if you're willing to see it reminded look to look at the other counts yes it we had some discussions i tried to work it out we just we couldn't come to an agreement so i apologize for having come to this stage but i guess yeah that's our position i think the circuit in colden on this specific issue the issue that concerns me that there is no way to extrapolate from a unit or military sentence the one year or more i would give you a session to that effect excuse me i