just not apply to previous cases but counsel you know the problem here is there are two different ways to to read the language obviously and i agree with you that the plain language favors your version in which  mr your arch is before the district court on remand we would say he has not been sentenced yet or he's not under sentence i mean this kind of goes back to some of john brennan's questions in a prior argument i mean how do we think about the legality of a sentence regardless of how we might use that term in ordinary usage mean legally he has not been sentenced and found it is a including pearson it's not really clear if they're talking about the plain language or the fact of finale any well both of those things point in the direction of the government's argument because and i'll tell you why i think yes the indefinite article does  generation the language the operative language here looks backward rather than forward it asks whether a sentence if the sentence has not been imposed as of such a day so it is not looking forward to and so that so with respect to the language there i think it clearly and their reason based on the language is that there is there is language that congress uses when it wants to talk about final issues and that type of language was not used here so in other words the court could have said if you know sentences that have been come final did not do that here so the language of the statute i think contains we're looking at it both in terms of finale and in terms of just the indefinite article that's used as well as just the directional purpose of the language they all of those things point to this question are points at this answer that they were looking at least the language reflects the intent that any time any defendant who has previously been sentenced for  why why did they do that what were they trying to accomplish why did they take this out from under the the usual  it applicable to people who committed their crimes before that and act went and who were sentenced actually sentenced afterwards and they did carve out by saying someone who has been previously been sentenced they did carve out people who had been decision and we could we could just so i mean it could be the case then that there it was you know not well thought out what are they later could decide that that's not what they wanted or any and all that happened but we the kind of language that's that's most frequently used when the intent is to incorporate and rainy and defendants who senses have not become final they fail to use that i mean the appropriate deduction from that is that they meant what they set and not something else and i think that's i really think that's the right way to read the statute i think that's what was decided in pears serving the sentence and it's going to be it's potentially going to be modified within the discretion of the district court we sent saying subject to any limitations put on the district court through the remount but that does not mean that it is is n like it never happened it has no impact whatsoever in the defense in title to immediate relief so i don't i don't think that's the way the park way to look at it in the defendant is here  is looking at a situation where i mean this is the perfect example of why it makes no sense to it to make application based on the length of time that someone has managed to get that appeal has remained pending or whatever here's three defendants in this case one of them is out of whack because his he got three sentences before this happened and it and it's just it's even even even the understanding that and congress could have drawn the line at chanel eighty and instead drew the line an imposition and that was congress destroys and they made it and it's up to us now to abide by it that's that's our view of the plain language of the statute and we don't we don't think that that any of the other arguments that can be made about looking at policy looking at you know sympathetic situations you know different defendants i mean it's true it is always unfortunate when when when some think when a new legislation comes through and people who have gone through the system before don't get to take advantage of that it always seems unfair but that's not that is not a basis to ignore the plain language of the statute and acted by congress so i don't my my screen is not showing time but i think i should defendants here nd was respect to congress being aware of general sentencing policy and general law well congress was also aware of what the way that the word composed is used and they understood when they used that word what it anality and the positive in the negative when according to pose a sense it's it is fine all in the sense that it is vital and operational at that moment here there's not there's no provision in the statute that clearly points to the application on re sentencing if there's really no indication that that's what was intended by the statute and if the language of the statute clearly point the other direction and we would ask the court