it more than once i understand your argument i guess i hadn't understood it in this light to be honest with you in the breeze but it seems to me that your argument is a little bit more compelling if for instance there was a remainder of the i take it what if the sentence were just changed somewhat it would if it wasn't normal and boy but something was added with that also be a sentence that was has not been impose has been imposed when in fact the statute says it does not apply it does apply in the sense that's not in the neighborhood and the reason i think that there inverting it is because generally speaking those two phrases i'm just to start with the claim that the government and the descendants are inverting this definitely good you can twist but was this raised below this interpretation is possible i don't recall that it was your honor but i can't i can't swear to it ok the thing that i wanted to say about the left with this precisely because his or her would be i don't hodges you're i was not saying that the statue could have been written differently absolutely the statute could have been written lots of different ways what i meant was that when you are testing this statute against the facts of this case ensure it is yes a sentence behave and at the end when we say that we're not changing the meaning the st step that that was the situation is that at that moment a sentence had been post it makes no difference that it's possible that someday in the future another sentence will be imposed because as at that moment in so sure if the statute said it doesn't apply if a sense of been imposed but that's not what the statute says so i don't think you can automatically jump to the conclusion that that is what this statute says it doesn't your honor one of the things i can i can say you have this is you know you know those optical illusions where if you look at something one way you see one thing you look at it another way there's one where it looks like concentrate i can see the rabbit too in this one i have an oval hard time finding the rabbit i just couldn't find a rabbit and i finally well it's fair to say that it didn't jump to mind because that wasn't the argument presented in  that were filed with us so i hear what you're saying but it is true that you have translated and lots of people have translated and i suspect i have translated the language actually a half step away from what it specifically says now i can't say that i've embraced defend his argument just yet because it seems to me it is premised on the notion that is always the possibility in this case  of the date of an accurate hypothetical possibility that there will be need for another resentencing by it's true that the literal language speaks in terms of when the statue show apply not in terms of when the states you shall not apply so that's i think the path we're on at and perhaps did to get to what really interested in it seems to me congress was drawing a line here i don't know that i understand what logic there was behind the line that the government proposes of the government congress true why is it that it should matter when the sentence was vacated or when the sentence was imposed it seems to me that this presumes that there's always the possibility of another sentence out there that could be imposed in the future and it really didn't matter what had happened in the past that i had only trouble understanding the logic of that two there's always a sentence out there but i want to tell you that this court has already acknowledged this so in that he's boris which is a case that the government relies on the court said is the reason why that individual did thing when they're in court on the same day congress wanted to make sure that after the st step act asked two people or on the same day for having done the same thing they don't get totally different sentences because one person had sentencing plan that the person who gets a new sentence is benefited and that causes despair and what the supreme court said was that kind of disparity is not a warranty because it's a but it's a result of the operation