ana the right to a speedy trial is one of the most secret principles of our criminal justice system a corollary to that principle is the notion that justice delayed is justice denied and that is what this and the main point to make about that is that the unreasonable to lay in holding a final revocation hearing impaired mr torres his ability to mount an adequate competent defendant to defend against those charge specifically the delay caused that the undercover police agent up to whom he allegedly sold drugs became absent from the jurisdiction and that is that he had violated supervise would you say that this was all this was a sentencing determination right sprite and so i mean the rules are quite clear that for sente support a distribution charge he was charger is really under article forty one and then he eventually pled guilty to are classified article forty six offense under the puerto rico control choices that his conduct was issued not about the conviction but again given the evidence that was before the judge the testimony from the supervisor and the affidavit why was the video within their video right yes  is that it lacks audio the only thing that the video shows is an exchange of money for a very brief i think would describe it as a two or three nd interaction between mr torres and this undercover agent come out the same way even if it could decide the affidavit not just on the basis of what the supervisor testified and what the video showed the problem with what you are and i think is that we have to go why why do you need the under cover another would suppose all they had was the supervisor and the video wouldn't that be enough to support the district court's finding if there's nothing against it no no your honor and the reason that  well if i can just go back to my to my own previous point is because the reason that the undercover is in there is due to this a reasonable delay that has occurred in this case so i think you know i'm not making myself clear what i'm suggesting you need to show prejudice the president has to go to the finding the district court ultimately made it on the record it be one thing if the i can see if the district court relied soley on a an undercover agent who was not there you might say well we never had a chance to challenge that that's the only evidence that supports it but in fact as i read the district court it concluded that the video and the supervisor provided the basis then want to say well we might have been able to undermine that if we could have cross examined the undercover agent but we don't know we had just speck of there's nothing in the record that indicates what you have to cover would say your client was a part of that conversation  no representation of elf what his side of the story was and why it would be exculpatory and that it was likely that the undercover agent would corroborate that story so what we have is evidence that in and of itself is sufficient to support the fight it was it seems to me to be the video in the supervisors statement and then a suspect of contention that maybe the undercover officer if they were there would have provided such damaging testimony the government's case that that other evidence wouldn't be sustainable that that seems like a relatively speculative prejudice argument but the reason that mr torrance perhaps struggles to show pretty is is because so much time has gone by the witness was imprisoned so we couldn't really hearing the defense counsel was he coolly caught him by surprise it seems from a reading of the transcript that everybody else at that hearing calling the district judge knew that the undercover agent was going to be there seems to me without any authority you would tend to argue that the period for measuring unreasonable delay begins back in may of two thousand and sixteen when probation filed a petition noting that he that your client had now been sentenced on the state charges when the law is i would say abundantly clear that you do not begin to measure the period of delay until your client actually is in federal custody you don't seem to acknowledge that at all and so sort of the premise of your argument seems to be completely unsupported by the law i have to know that sort of troubles me that you don't  knowledge what the abundantly clear law seems to be and if i could just as i said your honor i do apologize for not making it more clear we do acknowledge that it's from the time that the defendant is arrested the reason we point to the so we're talking eight months not thirty months is a period of delay do you acknowledge that while the government for no ten of its briefs notes that mr torres may have been in federal custody all as early as february of two thousand lay like the be the surrounding circumstances and not the valve is the relevant period that we have to look  there's a federal detainer your view as to when the clock starts does that mean that that kind of argument can never work because the person must be in federal custody for the c appropriate and you know parties just fighting over how long the sentence was going to be then perhaps you would have a situation where the state prisoner was brought into federal custody for the purpose of educating his supervised release triggered the violation then of the terms of the supervised release so that that could in theory right you commit some state offense yes and then that's the cause of the revocation proceeding yes but the revocation the basis  revocation the federal government take some action to make known that they are now aware that there's been a state violation and that's going to trigger the revocation correct but you're still in state their ability to get parole in the state system and if i'm understanding you that argument there is no prejudice because you're allowed to have that public charge hanging out against you with no action of it adjudicating a supervised release violation prevented a state court from running a defendant's term concurrently with his federal sentence and this court sunday that is speculative opportunity to request leniency in the manner of  charging a c sons is not legally cognizable in this case there is no evidence that the spending probation revocation had any effect on his ability to obtain torres can't get around the fact that i don't understand that i'm just trying to figure out whether it matters and how we analyze the issue when we start the clock because if we don't start the clock until you're actually in federal custody and even if it was not speculative the pending federal replication charge might have a detrimental effect it wouldn't matter because the call for church or considering the lay only begins when you're actually in federal at some point earlier than actually bringing the person to federal so the government's position is that there has not been a deprivation of liberty by the federal district court until the defendant is in federal custody i don't think it's strictly necessary for this court to to reach all of these hypothetical issues and decide for any and every case when exactly the clock starts because i think there is absolutely no form of prejudice  his consecutive federal term following completion of his nd term what if i had to go back and finish or state it exactly as he did here he went back to the state facility finish out the remainder of his state term and then he was transferred directly to federal custody for his consecutive federal term there is no parole possibility here it wouldn't make sense for there to be a defendant cannot be released to the custody of the state parole officer and serve his sentence requirement of the very odd would not i see my time is about to expire and i could respond to question yes i agree it would be exceedingly hard and that's exactly the observation that the supreme court made in cartman versus nash which we cited on page forty seven of our brief that where you have a federal detainer in this kind of a situation it doesn't really matter for the purposes of parole when the violation is actually adjudicated because what you're going to have is just one serve to chew acquire the state prisoner directly from the state correctional facility and bring him into the federal correctional facility at the conclusion of his state and that's why this a prisoner would not be eligible for