like to reserve two minutes for a bottle thank you as the court knows this is a government appeal from a single judgement following the court's remained in carter one after which the district court dismissed the indictment and the charge mr disposing of the only squarely issue presented in this government appeal on the government's favor i suspect we're here to talk about procedural posture and remedial options and with that in mind we would ask th imposed because he continued to traffic on while on bail pending appeal in carter won so he was picked up on that new state charge got about three years and worked out a deal work here is or isn't he still on frankly the state prosecutors are now experienced ones former believe the reason he's not on state probation which is why i thought you were going to chance it was because they all knew he would be serving into your federal resources are so much greater to supervise someone into drug testing and rehabilit etc so he's currently not on any terms of supervision and we maintain that the court pursuant to an order reinstating the original correct judgment in it that windfall not only to break through supervised release having already gotten to serve the custodial term entirely concurrently with this new city term we give him again through the ability to use rising as a sword  here in light of ways either the current one would have vacating the original correct judgment was erroneous and that screw history catherine he could come out to be a forward rather than a three and it would depend on what other issues but the to the extent the court disagreed this court disagreed with the district court and disagreed with the so i do agree that the procedural posture of this case has been convoluted i think mr carter has made it increasingly convoluted i don't think the delay at all three years of which he was in jail on a crime has caused the prejudice that w the motion to dismiss and travel all the way back to the district court judgment in two thousand and twelve to reinstate that judgment i think that that does a disservice to the pr however if it were to be found to fly i think that would only add three criminal history points with the application of the sporting exception i would venture the opinion of this court he'd still be in the zero to six rate if i really don't think it would materially the terms of the supervisor really does provide some structure that is helpful to someone i was struck and i don't recall the request but i immediately instinctively understand that i would have done that in an effort to persuade court that from under underneath anything got exactly what judge single handed exactly what the state court judge we deserve it there's plenty of case law that says the restraints on liberty that are associated with supervised these so he has the entirety of that two year period of supervision and restraint on his liberty his mobility residents association all of those things are infringements on liberty that he has the right to have that sentencing  and challenge and we would argue that it's not true to assert that we never check supervisor abuse it was part and parcel of our sensing argue that we brought under the sporting your collection exception in six months of supervision nine months supervision maybe a year of supervision so that you know all of that was part of what we initially brought before this court but your client is  when you can't pay his bills he resorted to taking his property that he lawfully possess and and he tried to get some money out of it but went back to a form at a higher price so i think that's evidence the collection aspect of this so we wanted that issue heard and we still stand by that that we're willing to take that risk on room and none of the cases that the government has has cited court's judgment and just ignore the vacant tour that came out of the first and it's almost treating it as if it wasn't there and substituting your authority on that which was inappropriate proper decision at the time it was made given the binding odd authoritative dictum coming out of castle and yes it was subsequently changed by the supreme court and now that's a but at the time you had castleman you had a big big hating of the armstrong judgement and then the district court had to guidance from this court it would have been shocking if judge single had not dismissed contemplated that there were no alternative collection of allegations that could trigger a misdemeanor crime of first of all the law is abundantly clear if there was a case for that card or one holding piece on or rulings based on supreme court dicta however compelling or not that maybe we don't have y z which is an explicit supreme court interpret that guideline for obvious reasons because it's dealing with prohibited persons as a very narrow exception and we maintain for the reasons stated in those cases not only did that showing and there are also cases we cited baker at the sixth circuit scenes of opinion that narrowly holding onto a don for sentimental purposes does not make one hunter or a collector and the case is a pretty good on that so there's the record before this like that would be the way to go we maintain for all the reasons cited in our very compelling case law that the district court got it right here to the extent that my final comment i think goes to mr billings his comment that the state proceedings went with what was going on with the federal proceedings including that mr carter was subject to that two year term of supervision so the equities here we just disagree that they favor mr carter again he was in jail for upwards of the state prison for upwards of three years of this delay and with that we asked the court order that the original correct judgment be