the biggest reason why the case is not middle is because mr fluker is in our present and has never been released every case the government relies upon to urge militants on this court involved persons who were actually released under sentences from the from the sovereign about who sentence they were complaining about so i do want to emphasize that the jackson decision was was his but it was made up you know to kind of get rid of a case if it was directly compelled by the president of gardner and it's unmodified as a government yes and that's really so significant because if i you know if i had the power foresight and no one to ask for a continuance for three weeks based on our experience with this particular district judge in this case and the way that he gives to pronouncements of the court of appeals regarding what is a crime of violence as well as the weight which is appropriate that he places on kind lines calculations i do believe my client would have and would least in the fall and a minimum sudden snatching would be covered that's fair that's fair and i believe that it jackson was correctly decided even with adults that came after death what do you mean i would like the court to do what it does in any case where a direct appeal the guidelines were misapplied someone was considered a career ender who should not have been a career it's vacate the sentence and send it back to the district court for every sentence saying it is not speculative to suggest if he ever got arrested again this this particular sentence could influence his future sentence first future guidelines that would be speculative and indeed i would not be before this court asking for a client to be relieved of  circumstances that flow from a future commission of a crime this is so concrete it almost challenges the concept of a collateral consequences it's really a direct consequence of the sentence that he's still in prison if his sentence were to change as the bureau of prisons counsel has confirmed his release date would change by as much as the district court in this case were to change the sentence i would direct the court eighteen u s c thirty five eighty four subsection c that states that multiple terms of this a statute now not of your presence policy statement multiple terms of and present order to run consecutively or concurrently shall be treated  ministry to purposes as a single aggregate term of imprisonment so rely on that statute that statute a sort of act around every policy statement or guideline the bureau of prisons issues the fact that in the most technical sense mr fluker has completed the fur genya federal sentence and is quote only serving the florida federal sentence is solely the product from his federal sentence until he actually gets the one i'm appealing until he actually gets out of prison in begins his term supervised that conclusion is compelled by the two term to start early to be considered to have started earlier the supervised release statute states that supervised release begins upon supervised release supervision begin to ponder rel and they said that it would do violence to the concept of release to say that it occurred while he was still in prison so for that reason that the respawn in that case last but that's really very similar to the government asked the court to  because the district court in this case said words to the effect of i have to interpret the guidelines for that crime of violence definition in a way that the courts counsel me to do there the gardner precedent to the georgia robbery statute and because of the unique timing in this case where jackson came out just so quickly after sentencing and i actually i had nightly requests that the government consent to a rematch because in my past experience that is the kind of situation where the government would have consented to a remained they would have said the district court did not have all the information it wanted and now it does we did not object to remembers new and new legal efforts have been completely unfruitful in finding out what the court could have been referring to case but the record in this case doesn't reflect that that would be likely or probable the result in this case the district court in the us are you different from any case in the criminal field where and in this case where the district court recognize that the facts and circumstances of this case which i can go into if the if the court wishes but involving the mr flippers pointing and pulling the trigger of a gun in the face of this police officer two inches from face the district court recognizes that recognize that the facts and circumstances of this case were absolutely outside the heartland of the drug offense the gun offense and even the one twenty four c offense for which mr fluker was convicted the court had the opportunity and in fact specifically consider the question of whether or not any sentence at the recent saying below what the government was asking for or sorry in the sentence below the god i'm would result in bank even i'm not entirely onboard with kind of the time it's here we spend a lot of time trying to figure out what is likely to happen in order to address this concern that i just don't really see but sentence i would point out to the extent that it matters to that particular inquiry that the communications from the p o p did indicate that these two sentences were de aggregated because of the differences in the particular statutes that the each conviction fell under regarding the credit for the time credit something so to the extent that the be a key regulations matter to that inquiry these two sentences were deactivated i'm not sure that that's what your honor was was really making reference to one day less time despite counsel's request for that after considering that if he did that it would result in thanks to i'm i'm against the ten year sentence that he was serving in florida the court specifically declined to do that and so that really is the basis for the government's argument that mr slipper's position is is for us to look back to the question on jackson it is the government's view that we have to resolve the georgia robbery question in order to get to meet this question and assuming the court would do that otherwise our position would be there would be no binding precedent even on the question of georgia robbery issues so our view is is that the court would have to get to that issue and resolve and finally i think there was a mention in counsel's argument regarding the relationship of secret lease and the fact that mr palooka remains on sick remains facing a period to lease in this case and our position is that because he is challenging his sentence in this case or to the extent we're talking about whether or not his challenge to the sentence in this case as opposed to the super press release term  there to separate inquiries and i think this court's case was very clear on that so i just wanted to add that and finally in a conversation with our counsel after we found our brief in fact this morning we both realized that we should point out to the court i think that the supervised release time in this case was mandatory under the statute and i think that also our resolves part of the missed question in this case to the extent that caldwell was absolutely appropriate as evidence direct evidence of the offenses in this case it would also be alternatively appropriately introduced as as victim impact evidence under section three seven seven one and in any on a different sentence and that sounds consistent with the court with the case that harris was was alluding to which i definitely need to look at and i'm chasing that and not come upon it i want to be clear that the relief that mr fluker see seats in this court is not to be set free that's not before this course when it will be set free the court the government argues about the aggravating guidelines yet but the government is suggesting that this court conclude that the district court would have imposed the same sentence even if lines were decades shorter and there is absolutely no basis to believe that the district court in this case would impose the same guidelines i mean the same sentence the relief i seek before this court is not to be set free or particular sentence it's to be have rescinded something that's free of procedural error or a procedural error in this case with the absolutely the government's arguments as to why mr fluker should or shouldn't get out or whether he should get three hundred eight months versus three hundred months or two hundred months is absolutely only to be made in the district court where where the government gets its claim that this district court appeared to be rejecting the guidelines i do not know i was president hearing and he was absolutely being guided by the guidelines i would just like to make deactivated because of certain misconduct that occurred in the ninety's that resulted in lost the time credits and under the bureau of prisons policies when you lose the good time credits on a sentence that were imposed particular window of time it the aggregated from another sentence one thing that i noticed in preparing for today's hearing is that that may be in error because