the factual sequence of events but the issue is whether or not when mr sullivan was transferred to a previously center if it's his if if his supervised release commenced at that time in anomalous results for example someone who is under state supervised release under official detention whereas someone who's on furlough is not on it so you're saying we can't look saying i want to win and i know yes i know that but to put but what i'm saying is i think that the court needs to ultimately interpret the language of release from imprisonment as it's used in the federal statute  interpreted state by state for some notion of uniformity in federal interpretation of the federal statute are you suggesting it would be  be the part of them to say that federal uniformity would override t the argument for federal uniformity well the argument for federal uniformity one uniform any argument itself but also an interpreter in federal law to interpret  federal courts certainly in constitutional arena for example i think only the fourth amendment or green or something like that where that the federal courts will apply their own law and apply the law agree with  commences on the day the person is released from imprisonment and we can assume that they're talking about both state and federal although the preceding sentence is talking about bureau of prisons release but then says and runs concurrently with any federal state or parole that anything other than those are automatically in prison but the federal statute itself is defined imprisonment is only community confinement it's a halfway house or it doesn't fit within any of those other three labels your same as long as it doesn't fit with and for facial supervised release or parole it is by definition still in prison yes it and and i would but i would add to that because chandler status i know now we're not interpret in chandler and i understand what you to be saying is that we look to the federal statute and the federal statute devised just like with haitian imprisonment to be anything other than those three items doesn't make any difference as long as montana doesn't treated clear bit between a box of community correctional facility and so on which is the foot in the community corrections facility box mr wolfe i have a slightly different question much of this entire dispute arises from the fact that the federal government was unaware when the defendant was released from state prison that the briefs were of kind of unclear as to how that happened but that happened on wondering if the solution here isn't to find that he violated his federal supervise release the moment he didn't report and i'm wondering why the government doesn't hang its hat on that argument rather than smoking marijuana at the end of a supervised release why not argue he violated his supervised release the moment he didn't report and is it merely the government trying to get a higher penalty or what is the reason behind that i wish it were something that creative your honor that if we could rewrite these briefs today sort of given all the new information and new arguments that come along even through the reply brief and then chandler whatever we do it very differently my research of this sort it's lawyer is failing to report for supervised release doesn't stop the clock you only stop the clock if and we've tried to figure out exactly what happened and basically that mr wolfe i wasn't arguing that that would somehow total i was just citing that that could now be the hat that the item you hang your hat on to claim a violation he says all about  the clock is running like finding a new violation on him doesn't help because the clock has run you just in to revoke him too late i think that's you have no matter what the argument you know for the question