a federal question though as to whether or not the amended abstract of judgment is a new an intervening judgment for purposes of determining whether or not it's possible good morning may please the court staff you write in on behalf of the warden there is no new intervening judgment in this case not how something happened sure what happened is they fixed a mathematical error which no of time so yeah as to and i believe that you know the state cases that have your issue is opposing counsel right about that it's it's in a legal sense this to the extent that the court had the jurisdiction to go back and fix this mathematical error which under state law has been viewed as a type of clerical errors i think going back to the question that you asked counsel before as to how we decide this we decided by looking at me the supreme court  yes but when they impose a sentence they say you've been sentenced to ten years they don't say you've been sentenced to ten years i see you've got one year of custody credit therefore you're sentenced i'm sentencing you to nine years it is always been ten just in the way that prisoners when they are in state prison can get more custody credit for things that they do well they can have custody credit that's doctor things that misconduct that occurs but that's a decision made by the department of corrections isn't it that's not made by a court correct this was a decision made by a court correct but that the but the real issue if we're going to decide if we're going to say that the sentence is really how much time he spends in prison then really there's no functional difference if the original sentence had not then corrected he would have spent more time in prison correct that's correct more time than he should legally have spent in prison and i asked right in that's why this and so why isn't this a very a life sentence i mean this is century a life sentence is a life sentence there's a minimum but but but i thought they don't have a release dates until he's a long way from getting that would be my understanding clerical error you believe to to get it right but it has as we've talked about it's ministerial it involves no legal analysis and that's why you can do it not proton that's why there's no intervening judgment in this case do and especially because in this situation we're going to look really get at what california says as to what is its sentence of course we're bound by federal laws saying that the judgment is the sentence but you need to look at california law in the way that they treat and i think that would be that could be different because it is actually the sentence for example in the twenty j letter about the case of wrote about that this court decided not to long ago that was a situation where there a misinterpretation of the of the guidelines or of the statute he was sentenced to ninety five years to life they realize that no you can impose to two year enhanced mintz really should have only been to one year in hanson and he was sentenced his sentence was reduced from ninety three from ninety five to ninety three years and it would seem that under the what this court has said in once all that that situation where there is an actual change in the sentence that would be an intervening judgment i just i just want i think it does come down to the fact that under california law this was an unauthorized sentence imposed in excess of the court's jurisdiction and under california law it's it's the function of  is part of the judgment really so i think that the issue is whether whether the two thousand and thirteen judgment is a new intervening judgment yes judgment not whether it's an intervening sentence whether it's a and it's a new judgment and that's the issue before this court yes is whether this is the judgment we should be looking at or the prior judgment on them and yes i think you two should swap place