review in the district court in the courts were very careful to specify the need to renew the objection in order to preserve it right and then there was a forfeiture well i think th government takes is that there was a wave of failure to register the objection but this court has jurisdiction to consider that notwithstanding the failure to note in objection different i have discretion to enforce district court in the absence of any adversary presentation to say ok yeah i agree with the magistrate judge but then to have a focused dispute it contention where the parties brief the issues and such on and the issue is teed up for the district court clearly it would have been a better practice for the trial court for the trial lawyer to have rigid injection however the district judge didn't review it did make findings on the record that they had reviewed and agreed with the decision regarding there being a violation more importantly their side their own discretion because they rejected who it and age agree with the recommendation and then went on to change the sentence the actions by exercise their own independent judgment the magistrate judge recommended a sentence of four months and the district judge imposed a sentence of my of nine months the because the defendant was not advised of the disease proceedings and therefore they not have an opportunity to seek to have the case transferred from france you know your constitutional significance concerning judge is that rules are two point one does not hurt in terms of execution of the warrant from form jurisdiction or another jurisdiction it turned the triggering requirement there is taking the defendant into custody and that is what happened here he was taken into custody simultaneously because he had violated but conditions of release under both cases and that triggered the requirement that he be notified and th supervised release and then section five appearance it is district wacking jurisdiction if the person is arrested or appears in district that does not have jurisdiction because conducting revocation  the requirement that the person be held in custody and he was told which is what but that just takes us right back to the moving question i think of whether went when the sdn wide probation office brought him in whether they were doing so for purposes of the s d n y violation as the government's as or whether on your theory they were also enforcing the d war it just takes us back to the same question it doesn't but it is how we catch you any more than boot answer the question because he was taken into custody for violation of conditions on both cases and the probation officer we do that i mean that because the probation officer before well before the d d c warrant even issues right but it's clear it's based on violating both because of the new york probation officer contacts the z and says he's in violation so he's in what after all that was done when the case was transferred to d c that was the position took had he been apprised of this earlier hadn't had the opportunity to transfer the case to new york we don't know and i suspect if you follow the recommendation of the judicial conference that favors transferring all over me but they're separate cases as far as i can tell the d d c follow the recommendation of the judicial conference that are the circumstances like this in the interest of conserving judicial resources and serving time all of the witnesses all of the allegations were in your violations in new york it made perfect sense to exercise discretion and said let's send this to new york to deal with both cases since they already have it and we can serve a lot of resources by the time it came to him here that's censored or even so there was no interest in judicial economy it was quite the opposite when informed she worked she didn't buy the prosecution she said ok well that will be my recommendation  in this seemingly unusual circumstance whether we should understand the sdn why probation officers having brought him in on one set of charges are both right yeah and so what why would it be unreasonable i mean there was this arrangement under which the s d n y probation office seemed to be doing the job of the d d c probation office and it makes perfect sense right he's in new york the charges are similar so there's this established pattern in the case that the s t m lie office is wearing two hats they're wearing their s t  law had in their d c hat and the conditions are the same they're they're monitored jointly and then he violates the conditions and they bring him in why why would we presume that they're still wearing both hats at that point  government's rethink government decided at least two cases on pardew and shet that say that in this situation you don't simply either draw a pragmatic conclusion or a sort of fiction that somebody is and custody suggesting judge was didn't wouldn't have had to transfer the case and there's indication in the record that he wouldn't have the case involved different charges different case different chemical circumstance quite clearly and not go with the magistrate judges recommended sentence moss also had the option to impose concurrent sentences and chose not to that provide some evidence that he wouldn't have transferred it that he  claim that wasn't preserved in district court to suck to be raised on direct review yes you know effective assistance usually kicks and in the collateral review context it does appellants raised it in his truly that is the way some of the biggest custody however since supervisor always has occurred and since moody has occurred probation officers now have the authority to take some into custody absent the warning if there is a violation and that the of both sets of conditions of release and at that point i suggest the proper analysis is he's in custody in both sets on the both court's orders on both cases simply that that's not so much an argument about legal differences between supervised release and parole it's just an argument about how we understand the facts in this odd situation where the s g and why probation office is doing some of the functions that would otherwise be done by the d c probation office and it's admittedly murky but you have essentially a finding of fact by the aware of it or the probation officer failed to advise the defendant and feel to advise the magistrate judge that there are these pending proceedings i mean this is the thing that was president because no not at all but but custody additional point in fact that the judge in new york believes she had jurisdiction over both cases because they were supervising her and that's why she said i'm going to impose a concurrent sentence she was then technically correct reasonable probability is it had not been transferred because intendant was not afforded the constitutional protections encompassed in thirty two point one had they been his lawyer and suddenly he when he learn