court immigration decision was wrong and that he should be subject to mandatory detention counsel has has sought to use incarcerated in the i believe that's hudson bergen county jail at the moment where he is today as far as we know immigration counsel is in fact that trying to find out what technically was the basis for this radio rats so that is his current situation  our position has been from the outset when we parse when the defense st saw the pre sentence report which is in fact it's out with a false statement  described them and we're not in any way opposing that that what's fair but we had a year when we had a lengthy sentencing hearing the p s r is clearly incorrect and the judge so  making up finding a criminal be reserved his right he was going to quote that he's going to presume the facts most favorable to the defendant with the exceptions that we argued ad itself that a district court has an obligation to correct those things because of collateral consequences that could have with the bureau of prisons and or in this case immigration the federal rule says that the judge reliance does not have to happen but does not have to delete you know accurate statement from the report because to require district courts to do that obviously to go through things that are going to matter for sentencing but because you know there's a lot of things in that report a lot of facts that could clear on relying on force yet for questions those questions were discussed and answered he said in addition to the guilty plea these are the four facts that i'm lying on and he basically said everything else is not affecting my sentence i'm not finding any crimes so he did what the rule the other things that so i think what he said at the sentencing completely conforms with the rules and you're not entitled to anything else and to the extent actually that you're coming back now and asking for the court to sort of re evaluate it because of the immigration consequences we've decided in two cases geometry and smalling that additional court doesn't have the authority after the fact to start going back and making determinations on accuracies after the sentence the only relief you have at this point and if the government about which may or may not be sufficient for what's going on in the immigration court is judge kogan did not attach the sense in transcript or in his statement of reasons that he cooperated the p s r without change which is clearly  the you have cited there were involved in those situations if i recall correctly that there was no contest of the p s r before the judgment and whatever what went on and that was the substance of those cases that in fact whatever challenges was going to made was may i think in one case many years after or or some time afterwards and the court really did not have the opportunity that judge hogan did in this case because we started all mediately to recognize the best fact that the probation was wrong clearly wrong i have deleted things such as this because i understand they have collateral consequences with the opium terms of where that doesn't mean you were in this case immigration so but but you don't have the obligation to do that is my point there's no obligation under the law if the government puts in a letter all of these things let's say that the let's say was in the p s i would say the government put in the letter the defendant had stipulated x y and z and it's clearly wrong the court doesn't have to strike the government's letter this court just says we're not going what's in the government's letter you don't emigration government outsell are using that the judge found that crimes that occurred not only is our client in danger of being in a situation where theoretically elated to others  immigration court system the emigration and last i don't know whether they got the statement of reasons are not but immigration counsel as said that basically a misstatement of reason is available to the immigration judge i cannot say that in fact of course i know the court ruled in favor of our immigration and rejected the government's view that there was a mandatory  ok nd question please i'm trying to understand what would be the purpose of directing the district court to attach the sentencing transcript to the p s r at this point the words if you want the sentencing trance script for use in your immigration applications why couldn't you just submit a copy of it with the application well your honor our practice runs would be a correction which simply said that the defense the disputed and the court made no determination as to criminality beyond illegal gambling which is what the record is that that would satisfy yet but it is certainly the record as it sits i mean the record is is by is not our preferred way it is law it is prolix i am very familiar with what went on i was the judge kogan disagreed and to is accurate it is not accurate and the judge so determined and having to deal with that what's our client in jeopardy jeopardy which just out of the blue occurred three weeks ago thank you and you'll have spector and i represent the government on the subpoena i was also one of the prosecutors representing the government below mr poaching appeals from judge code kogan to order denying his motion to change the b o p s doesn't nation decision made over a year and a half ago doctor the present without change which you were there as you know was not what he did and mr mack knows later in the report it seems to suggest refers to the crimes which seems to be inconsistent with  conclusions about whether or not it was criminal or not criminal and judge kogan made clear he was not relying on any of that under the rule he was making clear in sentencing you today i'm not relying on any but he also has an obligation then to make that clear in the statement of way and if someone didn't know if someone read that sentence with the statement of reasons they had no idea they would think that he adopted everything in that report sustain any objection to mr mack because there is no evidence supporting his objections all the evidence was submitted by us thank you just i get your honor the lack they've been of the government that all the facts and the i will stick with the sensing transcript this this was a very carefully negotiated pl hogan what's clear as to why he was doing what you said you cited those pages and and what have you and the record as it stands is an accurate i could spend a half hour to forty five minutes as i did before judge hogan going through the p s r and disputing and many many paragraphs dealing with the offense in the offense conduct that the probation department without any basis for the comment is saying we stipulated to being part of an enterprise and what have you we did not that was was arguably and has defended the boy or here before judge hogan as it could be and he e mailed it is clear in the as possible that in fact he was not accepting the probation department he was going to make whatever rules he thought were appropriate those rulings were not finding that a surprise they were character and be tendencies or our conduct that he determined any he accepted the government's view in some cases but not all there was i have the argument that went through went through the arguments on th the government had plenty of opportunity not to permit him to to plead to what gambling plea a gambling plea in the immigration world is not a crime of moral turpitude the emigration court agreed with that view and we are getting the reason he was just reracked that and what the circumstances are but it is starting it was going to rely on the immigration view that what other crimes are set forth in the b s are are the basis for mandatory detention and