with the course for mission i'd like to reserve two minutes for rebuttal this case involves the meaning of prior conviction and current conviction in a regulation that determines of federal prisoners eligibility for up a line of cases from this court involving this exact statute that recognizes that sometimes the litigation doesn't complete by the time supervised release begins and those cases hold as we've cited in the  f rd where the court said if we think it is legally permissible and serves the ends of justice and fairness for us to remain to the district court for it to consider in the st instance whether modification of abbott's term of super you know they were going to reduction because of course we found that they applied the wrong standard in actual size in their discretion there was a legal error and they had discretion they thought they didn't have how do then w realty to get a reduction consideration of eligibility is a interest that the court has does not hesitate to defend and and that's the reason why in almost every one of those cases that we've cited in the history of the litigation under three thousand six hundred and twenty one many many of those individuals who had already started their supervise released by the time the work got around to ruling on it and for to the mood to go back to the district court to make that determination based on the whether that as a factor in the interests of justice that would warrant a reduction in the sentence errington and abbott involving this exact regulation that formulated a remedy in terms of the death declaration that it was an unlawful execution of the sentence if the course been over service or potential over service which gets to the question of whether d the plain meaning of the statute has been of the regulation has been violated here and under the that's the st step of a three step analysis that we provided to the court in our brief which is st of all what is the plain meaning of the regulation and does that result of all questions nd what are the extra text you will considerations of the chronology of actually and the term of imprisonment and the rd is if the modification goes beyond what the regulation says what is the effect of the on the family was at the very beginning of the sense and there was a you know here i think it was six months to say it was even longer one year here is supervised release her and it was the same offenses would he be then i think the clear point of delineation is between serving a term of imprisonment and serving a term of supervised release because once but once the supervised release it is revoke it becomes a term of imprisonment and it is a term of imprisonment that is under the original criminal case and is part of the sentence for that case isn't that true heart of the period of of the term a supervised release in prison but is distinct from the term of imprisonment and this really answered and that's exactly what holloway and the two johnson cases through do that  line and make bill from this court made very clear that there's a difference between a sanction for a breach of trust and a term of imprisonment for the original conviction definition as the dictionary the act or process of judicially finding someone guilty of a crime and that's not what happens when there is a supervised release sanction that's not finding somebody guilty of a crime is not a conviction the prior conviction which is the same thing that any prosecutor would say if the person had a prior crime of violence or drug trafficking offense and was on supervised release violated the supervis mr marino in this is pro se litigation about this is saying i don't understand how can you say that that is a not a prior conviction it is a prior conviction i've served the term of imprisonment and that s of this entire question and as the court said in an bus the people are entitled to view written law and rely on it without worrying about extra textual considerations but here even the was serving a sentence for a drug conviction but he was also serving a sentence or is still a possession commission and what is a deal to decide that because this court and the supreme court both said when you're ser he simply did what congress mandated it to do it aggravated the sentence and when it looked at the supervised release term it treated it as this court the supreme court has told it to do as the execution of the original sentence say thank you i think the main point to be made is the argument we just heard was not talking about the regulations terms prior conviction is the relevant term current conviction other term in this context when he used sanction for a loop that is not a conviction is his earlier conviction as judge haggerty said and lewis is undeniably a prior conviction is correct eviction conviction is one that involved no firearm for an eligible it was eligible and under the plain language of the statute and in the full context of what's between term of imprisonment and germ of supervised release he was not serving a prior conviction and the reliance on the aggregations statute has nothing to do with what a prior conviction is or a current conviction