indeed comes back again and cox tomorrow what happens to him with respect to the issues that are in front of us now that's after the court issued its order i took a much deeper look into the case history and it looks to me like it would be a stretch but i suppose if you started with cbre in vs new york where they say there are actually two factors that would that are exceptions to the rule the one is you can't get your case heard before you before the expiration of your sentence well if that's true that is typically the case as one off on the collateral consequences agreed with you but it just seems to me that there's an entire year supervised release where if he violates it makes a big difference as to whether or not there was a concurrent or consecutive collateral concept typically so i'm not arguing against that i'd i'd i'd certainly like the court to hear this case i think it's an important issue after am one that we get some of these things  can hear argument oh ok well then then how does this piece differ from the normal kind i forgot what we call it and i didn't bother to look it up i don't get the problem in this case place but the fugitive if  send you agree with that judge except that after the court issued its order i spent some time looking at how it may be regressed and i tend to come up with the the same answer i'm not sure it can be reversed in other words i'm not sure how you go in and ring the bell so what would happen much suppose we were to say it's not moved and the sentence was incorrectly made to go consecutive then what would time overcame us in i agree as i started to say even if he came back i think the only thing that could happen is if this court said yes these these the court didn't properly consider mitigation or whatever it might be after ramla and then and then all that would happen is he'd get a new heat he'd get it just to the relief of having his case say well they violated your rights but it would have no practical effect whatsoever is the point really i guess the atmospherics that slightly concerns me is that he did not live here you know he did he was thrown out and so i don't think we necessarily want to abandon him and i have to tell the court that i agree i think bookers created a real quagmire and i'm not sure how to resolve it in terms of the amlin case done the merits of this case arguing that at all what i'm arguing is it what it what the position is is that if other factors can now be considered if the guidelines are advisory then every defendant who not that's not really what the statute says thirty five fifty three a says four and five states you look at these policy statements but we're still we're still asking you and you have them and i don't agree i don't agree with it whether they're whether they're i don't think we have a standing almost a standing presumption that the district court follows the law and what you're asking is that they have to prove that they've considered these thirty five fifty three factors the district court included several factors jackson only had one and we said it was ok because we would mitigate in terms of his imposing a concurrent or consecutive sentence that's that's really the issue that's what i read from booker is that we that they can mentioned several factors why would we just under jackson and why would we reverse that this well i think jackson is is the pre is the court has to give this this band whether it be my client or any defendant the opportunity to bring in factors that are because the guidelines or visor he can now look at in determining that can turn or consecutive so unnamed factors have to be put in the equation absolutely what are they here we don't know because they weren't available that's the whole point of my brief we don't know because the because the so it's not enough to just say the judge considered you know the the guidelines and the and the policy statement that's my position that it is long as they continue to do that that that that violates what what what they're supposed to be doing is looking at i suppose this guy had if i don't know some mother in a wheelchair and  and and you know he was so poverty stricken he couldn't do anything for his mother and wheelchair in mexico well under the old scheme that's not even that's not a consideration under five eight now it should be and if it's not and if that doesn't happen then then a defendant then or record is silent as to the half of the complete of the equation that the defendant that the defendant can present to that court that can give that is there must be some affective relief mailable to counteract the effects of the of the violation we're sort of dealing with what are those are can we just wait and see if anything happens at the end of two years can we go back and change the past district judge to make it concurrent and therefore somehow that would change how the surprise release will go forward starts one year earlier than we thought it was starting what happens technically well i guess that might be a question of finding out whether he comes within the the one year hypothetical extra time or not the problem is that what we are dealing with is this brings us within a case of i found trying to follow up on your your letter united states versus paloma p a hello m b a which is that one eighty two and third eleven twenty one and what plumbum explained was that before the supreme court in spencer vs came and got into the picture this kid course had a doctrine of collateral circumstances or collateral consequences so that even if someone had served his prison time he would still be in filed to maintain an appeal and how that issue dealt with based on those collateral consequences when spencer came down to change that whole area of the law and so  this court says based on that it's no longer an issue of those kinds of collateral consequences that may or may not ever eventuate the question is is there something in the existing which continues to give this core jurisdiction which is true in a supervised release area where there's that kind of a tale because that's still kind of a form of custody good even life radius and whatever but in this three to the plumber case which is about as directly in point as i can give it to you and this is again at page an eleven twenty three of the opinion although there is no standing to challenge an improper but the supervised release that was imposed as part of the sentence for the new offense has not but that's a different case and that's not why i asked you that the supervisor at least about which we are talking in th