chant of everyone the judge defense mr beaty and the government was that mr material would go to butner and receive treatment unfortunately that never happened and it became an impossibility nine and a half months later even though the court sentenced him then again to an additional twenty two months of the official detention adjustment so the expectation of the parties and the expectation of  it was never realised why the bureau of prisons didn't let anybody know that they weren't going to send men but an error couldn't send them to button or whatever the problem was and simply let him serve nine and a half months and and knock him out the door none of us will ever know the problem here is that this really isn't a clerical error it is it will air in the end yes your honor i was just having trouble tracking the way you characterized what happened you said he sentenced him to sound i mean like a different sentence and it seemed to me this case was all about a clerical error and making sure that the sentence that was imposed was the one that was carried out and you say it wasn't a clerical error it was a judicial air well referring the court took page six of the of the disposition hearing transcripts start at the bottom of the line twenty five it seems to me that what happened is when the court said the court sentence is a twenty four month the court pick up the wrong message according to the judge what the market said we're sensing you know life written in the judgment we're sentencing you to life in prison without possibility of parole well what with that with that stand over what the judge actually pronounced orally but what the judge pronounced orally was a twenty four month sentence now you know you're not you're reading very selectively there was other things said and there wasn't there there was there was jurado there was there was discussion right from the beginning of the hearing about the problem with the official detention adjustment but i think the question here is whether nine and a half months later  the hearing expressing concern that in past sentences past sentencing that he had experienced that there had been a problem between the bureau of prisons calculating what the time credit was and what the intention of the court was with regard butler and the intent of everyone was that he gets a minimum sentence possible for him to receive the treatment at butner what happened is that none of that happened well he didn't get it i understand you didn't get the treatment but that wasn't something th two years and that was it and that because of the credits that he doesn't have to serve a full two years my argument is that because of the way that this sentence apparently was was pronounced and that i think the problem lies in a sex line twenty five and there after that mr mathias didn't get what he and the government thought was going to happen didn't get why he didn't get into the treatment he didn't get into fight the question is that ok but i just wonder sandwich you in terms of time served the time served was structured so he would get that result i understand that and i know there's a consideration that you're raising here about whether he got the treatment that he thought he was going to get but in terms of the sentence that was imposed which was structured to make that treatment option available what did you understand the amount of prison time your client was being sentenced to twenty four months ok and did he serve twenty four months he said nine and a half months what that represented in terms of a sentence with time credits i'm not sure but clearly it wasn't twenty  four the problem here though is that there was a substantial upward departure from the sentencing range of three to nine months to give him the treatment at butner which everyone including mr material believed that he that he needed i'm not sure that there was a step that the court or counsel could have taken had i known and i didn't because mr makiya didn't tell me that he had not been sent to butner i'm sure that i would have tried to do  something that is meyer i guess as much as anybody's i probably should have checked in make sure he's given that didn't miss from a t a didn't think to let me know the problem is that nine and a half months later it was all defeated anyway and the whole purpose of the upward departure was destroyed there at that point there was never going to be enough time to send him to butler and it just seems like like on jurisdictional grounds to go back and try to with just something and leave out part of the consideration which was to go to butner and then focus and say well this is just the sentence that was imposed is just a clerical error and therefore you just have to serve the rest of the time kind of defeats the whole purpose of what was trying to be accomplished at the front end did he serve the sentence that that the judge imposed at the time he was released did he ever serve the sentence that the that the judge imposed he's serving it right now the court well you are in error in one adjustment that the court imposes so he served twenty four months that there were almost twenty two other months he was supposed to serve that he never served because of an error and clerical error in the judgment then he explains how it happened another judge signed it the prosecutors never reviewed it but it seems that this is a classic case under alan for correcting the sentence i mean the sentence that is applicable is the sentence pronounced by the judge and here we have the judge saying it didn't get written down right and my suffer any disability or serve any kind of time in excess of what he would have otherwise served or was he deprived of something they might have otherwise gotten had this been done right in the first place it's never been argued that he has and i'm not aware of any i think that part of the problem here is said well in our discretion we don't think you're a good candidate so we're not taking you to the record doesn't tell us one where the other what the cause was exactly although we have is the fact of the undisputed transcript of the original this position hearing in which the judge very clearly says this is a recommendation this is on the very same page six where the good says it's a further ordered that he be sentenced to a period of twenty four months of custody plus six hundred  somehow to determine whether he suffered some prejudice as a result of this event i mean it seems the government in this program to the only way at this point that that would be possible would be to  more time more time and that i think put in real double jeopardy questions whereas in this situation where we were in fact simply correcting the clerical error of the  failure to include the six hundred fifty one day annotation it was done exactly as a rule thirty six contemplated and i ask a procedural question in several cases when a court enters judgment the parties are given the opportunity or they have the opportunity to look at the court's judgment to make sure it conforms to what they understood the court's ruling to be and if there's an objection you make the objection is there any in practice is there any comparable provision here and both of those of you who were there in front and understood with the intent was looking at this judgment would have concluded that wait what's that's not quite right well  office she did not get to review it as she typically does and it's also unusual in that typically the sensing judge is the one who signs to the judgment and commitment or in this case disposition order apparently judge potter was absent for some reason and judge jorgensen signed it in his behalf so there was no other unusual situation where the typical checks and balances didn't pick it up but there is no reason to believe that mr allen people are fallible but none of the kinds of interest which are behind the double jeopardy clause are implicated in simple error correction there was no increase in the sentence it was the intention of the parties that there be eligibility that the entire purpose was to at least make him eligible but there was no promise that's why the judge phrased it actually amongst all of the people in corker as a recommendation because he has no authority to direct clean hands your honor all those bargain for was eligibility and that's what was given to him it was a clerical error which made it impossible for halfs because and we don't know for sure his own failure to apply what what you're correct that the court recognizes that it's below the that has the discretion and then the court says if it doesn't happen once he gets there i assume that violates the intentions of everyone here in terms of what the sentence should be and he could be brought back for resounds and based on that i think that is true but i'm not entirely sure either because we're always in this jurisdiction over a case after very few days in terms of having to deal with change fact required him to do something or this was simply the kind of ordinary discretionary decision which the bureau of prisons is entitle to make on that same page for as you see there is saying that when they go to the bureau of prisons they recalculate and then they subtract sentences of official detention and so throughout this for the judges recognizing and again to specifically articulate in terms of him making a recommendation only that the man good about here which is all that he could do why is that the other thing that confused me was the terminology they use problem i don't believe so i think that this was what should have been done because the official detention credit time as explained in the this position report is actually relying on the specific language you know guidelines pleaded so that on the one hand it is recognized that he has service amount of time and that as the judge could hear what he actually intends from a disposition two years from today as the judge said it will actually be considered a to answer the court's questions i did get a copy of the judgment i assume the judge got one and i assume the u s attorney got one so that is good or did you look at it if you see any discrepancy i went back and looked at my file i get indeed look at it i had to check it but for some reason i didn't pick up the problem you know i just didn't do it now you represented this this client and tell me how the mechanics work you made him eligible to go to butner for the street methicillin or you said i think that the proposal for him to go to butler is the best thing and mr mathias case so mechanically how does that work what does he have to do to apply and get accepted as far as i know he does nothing high threat to prior clients sent to butler and they both just gone there was no application there was no nothing that did decided not to accept and you know i mean if you don't have to do anything i don't think that is why wasn't why wasn't he accepted i think the more important thing is why wasn't he just transferred in that i don't know and the only thing i can think of is that the way that the sentence was calculated when he went into custody by the bureau of prisons was insufficient time will do because of this did you try to develop that at all in the in the district court did you try to develop that and suggest that because the way the sentence was written therefore he was found an eligible because he didn't have i didn't know any reason why you didn't develop at the f the time it didn't seem important in