of the judges of the united states court of appeals for the th circuit oh yea oya a all persons having any manner or form of business before the honorable the united states court of appeals for the four circuit admonish to give their attention for the court final judgment they granted the writ it ended the key gave mr kerr exactly what he asked in critical to our purposes it started the united states it was a final order simply because it gave your client what he asked for and what about sentencing ordinarily orders are final an appeal to this court until there's a sentence thank you your honor in a criminal case in a direct criminal case that is certainly true that nothing but follow interlocutory issues nothing can come up to this and the reason it did not is because in every one of those cases the for martin out of the th circuit the reach sentencing that the district court ordered in all of those cases there  it would not be a petition for this court to review that until all of the remedy has been granted that differs from this case critically because here the heard of a sentence this court can send it back to the just report and say you need to reconsider this as a whole that's not what happened here here the district court granted mr her and also the government because the government did not oppose this the government joined in this granted the parties exactly what they wanted those counts went the way the court granted the rich and that was it and the fact that this other  that to decide what the remedy the court gave you look at what was asked for and what was asked for here was bait hating there was a cow yes this is we could have certainly your honors looked at this is an abuse of discretion he's the guy i think if you read it you look at what the district court did it doesn't feel right but the reason it doesn't feel right is because the district court came in and it committed a legal  that something that was final get bumped that something that it couldn't have changed at the resentencing and this wouldn't lead adopting this rule this sort of you know understanding that this case are different than had government could have appealed it to the reason clinton thing would be an entirely separate appeal raising an entirely separate issue on the white critically unlike the situation in andrews or order is final or not it'll be the district court with nothing true other day and execute the judgment and that's all the district court could do at that it could not go back at the reception and say you know what everybody having given this the more thought i'm going to go ahead to reinstate we asked the court for something we agreed to something that maybe we shouldn't have because look here there's this weird fear is the thought that if a notice of appeal that it comes up to this court and then we have mistake i don't understand it would be these johnson cases stress both sides we had a lot of clients to go through and the government had a lot of cases to go through and by and large and i'm sure  did would agree it was a very good partnership where everyone was working together trying to get these done in the interest of justice is a vision we as possible ringback but eight heavy workload and a good relationship does not it's use missing a deadline and because this is the civil case and not a criminal case that sixty day deadline is actually torie and it's jurisdiction so even if this court wanted to reduce the government's late filing of the rules sixty it couldn't because the supreme court his dad that you know big congress congress has basically said after sixty case it's not final or appealable until one of of three remedies occur and i think in our grief we may have said for revenues but when i looked at  corrected sentence which he thinks as is what happened here with the d with vacating and that argument has some appeal what the government's response to that will and that goes to  corrected the sentence without a new sentencing hearing sometimes it does so on and on the government's agreement that they decided we don't need to have a reset and same here we're just going to reduce the defendant sentence to reduce the nine hundred and twenty four seat count and in that case there was a new so it's issue but it was done through a correction here there was there was no correction that resulted in a new sentence and so because there is no new sentence the judgment is it's not complete and i think that's why it's important that you know hardness divided into three categories something just doesn't feel right here that the government really made a colossal mistake which i'm sure you would agree with it but what about the the injustice or faith in the government here what about what's good for the goose is good for the gander argument surely if the defense said and made a mistake like this the government would would be jumping up and down about it well sir i think that if the defense had made a mistake that resulted in more prison time before  was one made by all the parties here and but but it was also corrected before the defendant was recent before it is really understood hard to understand how this mistake was even made in the st place it's one count one sentence the word conspiracy doesn't which was what the make a thing the senate was based on doesn't even appear in that one count it doesn't even that there were many of these cases coming through at once many corrections to be made and and that doesn't excuse the error but the bottom line is the defendant was not entitle to the relief that he requested and so i think the mistake and we shouldn't have done that we should have more carefully reviewed this but i've been a criminal a u s a for much longer than i've been an appellate a usa and i have made my share of mistakes in the busy could you repeat the question i'm not sure there is you know you know that the good optima state there was still something left to do on one count correct yes all right and that had not been done yes so the time to appeal that correction and if if if we had held back in and waited or had been unjust and in our going in this court to the did this to the courts the tench attention i think the district court might have had discretion not the district court here exercised its discretion to fix the mistake but that may not be true in every instance and that's that's a matter that the court considers and once it's done th e defendant certainly has the ability to appeal the district court's exercise of its discretion i am not saying the courts required to fix every mistake that's may just that it had the agree that issue has not been briefed it's not before the court and i would concur with mr brick nack that if the court wants to consider that issue that supplemental prefix would be appropriate but but this this case is about the jurisdiction it's not about the issue of the court's exercise discretion the martin case is it is th circuit case the defendant and knowledge is that that case is directly on point here presents almost the exact same and when we we look at martin and the court does emphasize the importance of not having peace you know if appeals what it says is if we allowed this approach the also point to that hilary and smith case they cited by the defendant that's where the court talks about the sentencing package the theory and the fact that sentences are treated as a package it's acknowledged that a predicate we were certainly not conceding that until this court's mathes decision so we are position would have been that he was entitled to relief regardless of the mistake about the conspiracy or not that's something we all have to live with the government also cites hillary or mentions hillary in its argument and they would if the court looks at that you know at the very end of  the rd section of hilary this court actually talks about the fact that you know this idea of not letting the twenty to fifty five and the the defendant in that case indicated that could lead to some problems and could lead to some gamesmanship in the court said straight up on you know st we're only going to decide the case in front of us but we will not hesitate to correct abuses of the district court's discretion if this is being so even in hillary and so for the courts talking about this rule it is signaling that we're not going to let this become gamesmanship and we're not going to let this become and derail this in the government does talk martin we acknowledge martin this court d i don't want to hype the ball i don't see a way to come out the way i think this court should without creating a circuit split with murder but martin talks about the need for piecemeal a geisha and it wouldn't be piecemeal appeals the legal issue of correcting the sentence on the twenty dollars to fifty dollars five's granting the wri ending the case is one appeal and the substantive criminal issues related to the sentence is a totally separate appeal they wouldn't have overlapping issues instead it the government says yes it does thank martin but  not on point the government appealed instead it and it was a capital sentencing and the count that was set for a capital re sentencing was the count that was the subject of the tw and fifty five so that's not factually similar to this case and we knowledge that if we were actually similar bit stiff with control d d it doesn't come up much between the two of us and i'm sure mr bragg didn't you know spend as much time on westlaw as i did martin is the only other case i've ever seen that has this factual scenario it doesn't come up much but what does come up a lot is that finality is important and when a case ends party has the time to appeal and if you don't appeal you've lost your right to do it and no one disputes rule sixty cannot be in and around that so we would ask the court to vacate the district court order and remained with instructions to basically grant the twenty to fifty five take away that united twenty four c maybe so much