well i would have thought three or ninety one would govern like a substantive standard or standard that was involved in proceedings up to the point of an order of deportation but that once there's an and that's a good argument but basically we don't have to reach a constitutional challenge to the all story provision part relies on alvarez mendez who was an individual detained at a time when twelve of the twelve twenty six he applied prajna argue that he should get the benefit of a prior detention regime you that my current attending my detention is in our model because his past regime didn't fit my case you know that this court said it's your current not your past detention that's an issue you're not challenging the the  vast attentions to present attention that's that's crucial the natural reading of three nic one does not include detention there's no words about detention in fact it talks about quote the preceeding shall you know the supreme court has commented in a different context and same steer on three or ninety one and they have stated that it is that that provision is best read it's merely setting out the procedural rules to be applied to block of its decision about what you know whether through twelve c was wiped out for everybody because you prophecy is also a factory and it's also part of the laundry list of things that have been changed and it said we're going to have you read three and i see one as the government wishes to read it i think that would contradict the supreme court's decision and things here because they're looking at inclusive as involving everything even if it's not mentioned in the supreme court said that they were not going to do that i think one of the things that i think it is crucial here is that the crazy quilt detention process that would be created by the government's theory there are many many mario cubans who have not who never got ordered excluded prior to ninety six they got ordered removed under the new regime of our ira they had criminal histories better some worse than mr martinez  it makes all the difference in the world under this court's decision and will those the folks that are pows ninety six get out and under the government's theory you know their vote the mightiness does not in addition as the government attempted  to clarify and i finally horribly complicated it involves different rules for people with deportation orders depending upon whether they fall under the transition period custody rules of ira which is that three three v two b three we cited the statutes in this case you know in our briefs quite frankly it would take me you know a half hour to really formulate the different pigeonholes that different people would come into transition period custody rules would be fallen or twelve thirty one a six and it just is a horribly complicated scenario when you're thinking about a congress that is intentionally created a uni ary process to simplify the whole process the sixteen provisions of three zero nine c also illuminated mr martinez argument because they deal with specificity and it shows that congress knew how to specifically deal with the suspension deportation cases that are pending and everything and each and every one of them deals with the process deals with the immigration judge proceeding and you view from that any indication that the that any reliance of the government places on on regulations that were passed that are unsupported by statute of course whether or not they work very retroactive and involving just basic canons of statutory construction in the end i think we need to go back to the natural reading of the three hundred ninety one of the government relies upon i think we need to emphasize and urge the court to understand that it just simply makes no sense to treat someone else human and one way and others in another way and the converse that they would all be treated the same makes much more sense there's no there's no meaning that can be given proceedings which is constantly the word that comes up in this con