i submit that the government still wins on that point because what makes for a facially sufficient application and order more properly we're concerned that the order is that the order identify the authorized official in the within the  attorney general's office that did in fact authorize this application and how to judge carroll the right how did judge carroll arrive at that he had all the the wrong letter a letter that indicated daggy john malcolm the person who did in fact authorized our wiretap what the application does is referred to the attachment by reference doesn't yes and the attachment is the wrong attachment that's because we have the job his case which is about twenty years old out there your honor that says certain errors certain errors like this do not grasp or go to the fundamental purpose of this requirement which was congress making sure wrong and that wiretap was still held to be adequate was not suppressed we have an even better case in the ninth circuit called calendar that came out just a month after the suppression order a month or two after the suppression order was issued and  there was in fact no authorizing official identified in the application packet or in the order and yet this court still found that was sufficient and it did not suppress the wiretap and that's what we have here a situation where we because it wanted to clean up the record and make sure that everything was in ultimately shown on the record to be done correctly but it was that's why i want to get back to the the essential question your honor the  requirements the essential requirements as held by this court the supreme court were met as of the time the application was made the important timeline elements are these on october third off two thousand and three the  ignore that this is we didn't the fact get the permission of the department of justice i probably attach the wrong sheet to the application so don't worry you're on you can go ahead and authorize the work that you know i wouldn't put it quite that way your honor i don't going to stop there and said trust me on this what would have happened at that point if judge carroll had seen that it was the wrong letter is that we would have stopped going back in the office called and got the right facts right then and there and there and there would have been no interception of communications there wouldn't interception of communications form europeans interception of communications went on for more than a month yes your honor and the government concede valuable information was gained during that period it does concede that valuable information was gained during that period and there were thirty four days of interception with thirty days of interception and the next up of case in was based in part on that information wrong but what we still half though is that whether or not the right letter was in front of judge carol the authorization had been obtained and that delay by the way that i talk about where we would have gone back and gotten the right letter would have been a matter of minutes or hours not thirty days just as a matter of fundamental policy before citizen telephone communications or intercepted by the government shouldn't we insist on strict compliance with the statute your honor that question has been answered by counsel and the answer is no as long as the error that is sought to be addressed here isn't does not go to the fundamental issue of not having proper authorization by a designated and accountable first it's just yet the only way the issue of the article three judge issuing a wiretap authorization in this case would improper it had the information it had to have i understand the point that it was the wrong letter dealing with something else but at that point we had been told that it was dad john malcolm and that's what we were prepared and if there again if there had been no letter simply gone over and said we have the authorization and the authorizing official is identified as john malcolm under the statute and under the law of chavez and now callan for the ninth circuit that question is the question in my mind is did judge carroll abused his discretion by issuing this order based on a authorisation for pittsburgh pennsylvania and i submit to you that he did it is pretty obvious that he didn't read the individual in an appropriate individual at the department of justice had authorized the application for interception and referenced an attachment which was not attached would that have been sufficient i submitted it would not your honor the reason being that the application has to show the evidence of the authorization it has been the procedure followed for a number of years as is reflected in all the case law counsel for the government is correct correct isn't he in stating that that what the statute requires is that the government informed that the article three judge that an appropriate official of the department has in fact authorized the interception i think that correct no judge it is they must maintain the appropriate ok but it would be sufficient to simply name that individual and not attach an authorization letter of any kind authorization in front of him in the application so he knew that it had been authorized by an appropriate official that's also the fact pattern and swan and all of the other cases application must contain and when he says the ability of the investigative or law enforcement officer making the application this had that didn't it yes and the officer authorizing the application it had that  not that's what's missing you didn't state the name of the d o j official no it simply referenced the attached letter issue is the application in our record that all fours again the fact that no surveillance was it was only attempted on one occasion that you know held at that as a matter of law was insufficient under the prior case law i'm carney arrow blackmon and if alito i submit in this case as an alternative grounds for holding to the district court judge you suppress fear that you can is under the power conferred upon him by specialization attorney general there is an order in that an appropriate official of the criminal division has authorized this application attached the ability of the individual who authorized correct or his title were hurt you are correct how does that comply with twenty five eighteen one in because there was something attached if this application had been a five by name and title the individual who would authorize then it seems to me that you could appropriately argue that it didn't matter what the attachment was this does neither we don't know from this application you don't know whether this was in fact an appropriate official or even who was right i agree with that you're on and the only way that the authorizing judge can do that is by reference to exhibit b and  it's the wrong case yes your honor it is the wrong case and argued as much as i think it makes sense to argue that we had the right person i will simply go back to the second position which it is now even if the court fin purpose of an authorized and identified individual at the a g s office giving the authorization before the application came in and it's going to be all right it's disfavored obviously because it is an error but it's still ok