there are three reasons why mr moon's placement at the community corrections center should not be considered custody but rather part of supervised release those three reasons are first the language of eighteen c thirty six twenty four second it's the supreme court and one circuit case law which supports the reading that his placement of the c c c as part of supervised release and not as to the third of the facts of this case  eighteen u s c thirty six twenty four c contemplates if the old p releasing the prisoner with giving them help percent before the end of the sentence releasing them under conditions which help the prisoner adjust and prepare for life in the community further it continues that this is to be done with the help of the united states probation office there are thirty six twenty four iii further  that supervised release and release to the persons probation officer begins on the day the person is released from custody i'm sorry from imprisonment with that we are getting we turn to the case law which tells us  united states versus johnston by twenty nine us after at fifty nine tells us that supervised release helps a person or transition to the community and so we have here case specifically dealt with escape provision and even if the probation department or the bureau of prisons were paid for the bad certainly in that case they found that it wasn't custody for the purposes of escape under seven fifty one piece far and the interpretation of what is supervised release and what is incarceration tells us that placements he seems to be a place where like mr bloom he's allowed to go and get a job and a hygiene pass in this sheet to the extent that the well started it describes the united states probation system being involved in this placement and so if thirty six twenty four contemplates the united states probation office president that's correct that's correct but the way the only way this the reading of the statute makes sense given the case law that interprets what supervised release is what the yeah i mean generally speaking i mean there are more egregious violations of supervised release but order not returning to the c c c or however the case may be i'd like the court to which tells us that community confinement is not imprisonment and distinguishes how these two concepts are different community confinement isn't imprisonment but the question is whether it's a custody attorney general  you're not saying that the only thing with the prison to be truly general can do is to lock somebody in a cell somewhere in order to constitute custody cannot isn't there enough flexibility to allow things like work release of the statute is clear is to be done under the united states department of probation and if so if the united states and the probation department is caught up plated to be involved in this process then it makes sense that once he is released from imprisonment supervise release begins and the case by then i cited in my brief specifies that that's supposed to be taken literally the day someone is released from imprisonment is when supervised release begins supervised release and in prison it cannot be at the your in a penal institution in phoenix and then sent to a community corrections center and that's tantamount to a release now in this case we know that he that a veteran occurred before the the prisoner until his sentence is done be you will give him credit toward that and take them away if there's a disciplinary problem see you will at the last ten percent of the sentence given the opportunity to go into a program that will help them reintegrate into society which is not referenced in the briefs that is when you transfer him to that lower level records raised the question as to whether or not this four had questions whether the defendant had actually completed his term at the end of when he was really transferred from phoenix to san diego and i set out a flow chart for the course convenience if you wish not part of the record i think this is part of my argument this shows why when he stepped out of the doors and phoenix he was still serving his alien smuggling term of imprisonment because it ha not yet expired on june second he was sentenced as twenty four months then he will seven hundred thirty days total and the pre sentence report that was provided in the  had there were one hundred twenty five days of pre sentence custody that's on the face page of the pre sentence report if you subtract the total number of days for from twenty four months in the present us custody that's six hundred five days fifty four days is the first period of vested credits that's for the first twelve months those are vested the of prisons cannot take that away if you subtract that that's five hundred fifty one days so if you subtract the pre sentence custody and the vested credits five hundred fifty one upon his disciplinary hearing to revoke his custody credits they the record shows that he had forty days of unvested credits because he had not yet served the second anniversary and that was appropriated for the remaining one hundred forty six days and if you subtract those forty days of unvested credits that's five hundred eleven days five hundred eleven days is the  remaining on the sentence minus pre sentence custody credit vesa credits and investor credits five hundred eleven days is the magic number in this case because that is the days that will remaining on sentence on june second his rejected release date was october twenty sixth two thousand and four and that equals the exact number days between june second two thousand and three and october twenty sixth two thousand and four when he was released transferred from phoenix to san diego that was august twenty fifth so he had yet to complete the five hundred eleven days remaining on his sentence so that under no of twelve months those fifty four days to vest and the bureau of prisons cannot take those away for any disciplinary purposes and violate all kinds of disciplinary rules and still keep those fifty four days correct but there but the incentive for the prisoner not to violate all the other rules is because he still has in the second chronological year of the sentence the ability to accumulate fifty four more days and the bureau of prisons can use that as the incentive to keep discipline within the prison and in this case the basis of the revocation was code two hundred which was the bureau of prisons disciplinary limits of the confinement that's the equivalent and i'm not quite sure what that for at least for the california state the custody credits are very confusing because you have  times for local caspi third time for prison custody and then if you're a second or some third striker they have the same fifteen percent structure fifty percent possible reduction structure as the federal the the reason mr bloom was released in august twenty third two thousand and four it's based on his good time so it's factor credit and under the authority of the research twenty four c and thirty release is the start of his supervisor at least term as tough played in thirty six twenty four as the case law makes clear that this type of transition to the community is for rehabilitative purposes and not for the purposes not