what i was wondering as i got the sentence that would i'm in the state that they did there's concurrent to whatever time if i was getting time here and i'm just hoping that you would keep me and then their time getting honest your honour's i think it's unreasonable to think that that's what was happening in light of the back and for questioning the defendant couldn't have been clearer he's in an articulate educated man but he said to the court quite clearly as long as i stay in federal first he said yes and what made me the issue in front of us is how clear a statement do we require is to say do we would we read this as if it were a used car contract or a bank credit card contract what do we read it in some different way if and not objecting or the court when the thing is i mean sure you can possibly you know if you don't want to stretch the language you can possibly possibly come up with a conclusion that's what you're defendant wanted and transferred to the state and he immediately in december just a couple of months later probe heard no manipulation no lawyer he's just saying what you're saying this is what he hoped to get out of it maybe that's what his clients hope to his lawyer hope to get out of it but things everything around the bush except i want to serve my fellow sons first if the situation is so ambiguous that this court judge kozinski doesn't understand then it seems to me when judged as does anybody have a different view then at that point in only three different orders three different ways forthwith right now serving the warrant doing everything possible to get this guy into federal custody because he's going to get credit for time served my argument is not with the state i think the state did a great job she have senate but did she have the authority to require that a federal sounds be served first you know i don't know the answer that question he was there on or with the from the state court which generally means he has to be return now i don't act i don't know the answer i'm being honest with you but i think seems to me the federal court to be honest can keep them for years in the state court would not do anything about it nobody would do anything about it and the sentence would be that may be true of course just again just doesn't doesn't answer the question as to what was in your client's mind but but it does go to the question of the how clear was all of this if it's if the parent of a district judge does not have authority to order somebody held in federal custody  forty five is a ninth circuit case where what happened is the judge sentenced the defendants who concurrent sentences concurrent sentences were unlawful and so the case came back to the district court judge and the judge said i made a mistake i'm certain he would do it different that and damage to the ninth circuit to when when the when judge patel so you get to finish you to finish your sentence here why what good would that do  choose to do was up to the stick that's correct she made that clear both at the time of the plea and on but on him is the stay there or you don't want it was going to do this and by that time we'd finished in state court that's correct by the time her which of course then makes perfect sense of everything that follows which is why mr blank and his client are saying we want to have the federal sounds go first otherwise why in the world would they care well mr blank never says anything about the chronology and no think something different i mean a reasonable person understanding how the system is going to work knows that the only reason mr blank would want this or would care about this is if the federal sentence goes first otherwise he couldn't care less well any reason for the worse as the court which is this lawyer and which is maybe i don't know and i think i have a right to assume just patel that she may have misunderstood although i'm not sure that she did but she may have asking about the chronology of the sentences he said we're going to go back to state court now what the state court could have done when johnson was returned there by the marshals as as was appropriate under the writ is they could've taken a look at what judge patel kind of recommendation i direct order from the state court has no effect the federal authorities are under no requirement even in the face of a direct order from the state court to take back a prisoner who is currently serving that i find his the client question crystal clear now it's not written in the terms that you would expect a formal contract to be written but i have no difficulty at all understanding what mr johnston wanted and was asking for  way some difficulty in understanding what judge patel thought she was promising but have no difficulty at all understanding what johnson wanted and thought he got i think that in light of the other comments by the district court surrounding th the interpretation by mr johnson that's being urged on the court is actually not at all reasonable because what the district court that over and over and over again is that she wanted this sentence to be consecutive and she's that she doesn't say it over and over and over no matter what your expectation is about what's going to happen now during this muddled colloquy no matter what your expectation i have no control over that you know and it's not i'm sorry that's that's more imprecise she said i have no control might not even have been in his attorney's head but the sequence of questioning seems to me unmistakable that's what he thought he was getting now if we were talking about an unforeseeable contract between two sophisticated parties a bank and another bank or even a bank and a poor unsuspecting customer written out of form language and so on that's one thing but if the inquiry is what was reasonably in mr johnson's head when he pled it's very clear to me that what he thought he got agreed to not move up or departure for defendant who had twenty six criminal history points almost twice that required to be in a criminal history category six government agreed to no upward departures his sentence has gone to trial on all three bank robberies would have been at least in the range of twelve to fourteen years not the eighty four month sentence that he's trying on the one hand to maintain and yet not be stuck with the consequences of his pleat and one  behavior whatever the twenty to fifty five were if this was a knowing involuntary clique then the collateral review waiver takes care of almost every single issue raised on this appeal no matter what the